Jameshow
Established Member
Rubbish!
I hope you don't need care in coming years. Sorry we cannot come and clean you up as the bus doesn't come for 20mins!!
Khan's ULEZ scam >road charging
- Thread starter Homeless Squirrel
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
I hope you don't need care in coming years. Sorry we cannot come and clean you up as the bus doesn't come for 20mins!!
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It's easy to find out - just google "where does ULEZ money go" and you get the answer in a flash
"All money received from the ULEZ will be reinvested into improving the transport network and making London’s air cleaner.
The annual T-Charge income is £3.4m. As the T-Charge is combined with the Congestion Charge, TfL cannot separate out the enforcement income generated from non-payment of the T-Charge."
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...ey received from the,payment of the T-Charge.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Oddly enough yesterday I saw a middle aged woman walking up the hill to our village, obviously not a "walker". I recognised her as probably the carer of the old chap up the road and had arrived by bus, with 1 mile left to walk. I would have offered her a lift but I doubt she would accept one from an unknown weirdo elderly chap in a scruffy van, it could be embarrassing, and she hadn't got far left to go.
These people are some of the lowest paid and most grossly exploited in Britain. She couldn't afford a car. She could have waited half an hour or so for another bus but she would not be being paid for the travel time.
So those claiming to empathise with the travelling "working class" could perhaps shift their priorities from their personal interest in vehicle transport, towards low pay, exploitation, and efficient public transport.
Apparently this scenario is at its worst in London and other cities, where low wages won't even cover the lowest rents.
Last edited:
We already pay per mile in a number of ways is no justification for an additional charge is it? Why additional charges anyway? Answer you can keep people confused as to ultimate intention.
Congestion charge zone around city made some sense except London had always been a through route it was a pain but it only had effect during week days and you could go through in the evening or weekends so we lived with it. We had the M25 and the Dartford Crossing by that time which was also was free in the evenings and was going to be free once costs had been recovered!
About the time Dartford was paid for The Highways Agency realised it was a nice little earner so decided it wouldn’t become free after all so it didn’t how queer ? They saved some running costs by getting rid of the pesky toll booths though and made use of the ANPR tech that worked so well for the Congestion zone, Dont pay get a fine its many times more than the charge, pays for operating costs and a tidy profit! Even better get TFL to operate the cameras they have lots of experience. About this time TFL introduced the LEZ ,it extends to the boundary of Greater London easy sell really get rid of all the old polluting lorries and vans who would object to that and it could be policed with cameras contravene and a big fine arrives by post (mostly affects scummy builders and small business anyway so who cares?) So here’s TFL and the Mayors office how can we keep our huge pay cheques rolling in they ask?
They discuss among themselves and decide Joe Public is a mug he can be milked a little more, they hatch a plan to add an additional charge so add ULEZ it operates in exactly the same area as the CC (congestion charge) extra money no more cameras required!
There’s a bit of kefuffle but they placate people by saying don’t worry it’s all for your own good and that’s it now no more extensions or charges honest
People accept their fate most of them don’t go that far into London so OK.
Then a strange thing happened “We decided to extend ULEZ to the N. Circular and S. Circular” they said but that’s it now
. The lying *******s we said I bet they extend it again. No honestly we won’t they said and the question was asked “So why have you ordered all those cameras?” Unfortunately they had no real answer Mr Khan said well you lot are facists and covid denying homophobic anti vaxxers and many people began to worry that he is not really an honest man.PS some reading this will conclude I have a problem with Sadiq but much of this was put in place by Boris he’s a bit of an ECO warrior nut job they all appear to be self serving winners at the end of the day
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It's to do with congestion and air quality apparently. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it so far!
There was I thinking that you posted all that just so that you could slide in this line
"Mr Khan said well you lot are facists and covid denying homophobic anti vaxxers and many people began to worry that he is not really an honest man." and this one "ECO warrior nut job "..
"Mr Khan said well you lot are facists and covid denying homophobic anti vaxxers and many people began to worry that he is not really an honest man." and this one "ECO warrior nut job "..
Cooper
Established Member
This article in yesterdays paper gives the evidence for low emission zones. I live in Bromley, one of the outer London boroughs effected. I support the scheme and was financially effected by it. We had two 20+ years old cars, we kept on the road because I could still work on them.
But living by a busy road I am very aware of how bad air quality can be and seeing the effect of it on people with respiratory issues I realise how selfish I was.
I replaced the cars with one and spent £6k, fortunately I could afford that. I scraped the old cars and got £600.
I’m old enough to remember the smog in the 50s , going to school with a scarf over my mouth and the dirty patch in front of where I’d been breathing through. That smog killed lots of elderly people. The gases ULEZ is going to reduce are invisible but just as deadly to vulnerable individuals.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...proving-health-studies?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
But living by a busy road I am very aware of how bad air quality can be and seeing the effect of it on people with respiratory issues I realise how selfish I was.
I replaced the cars with one and spent £6k, fortunately I could afford that. I scraped the old cars and got £600.
I’m old enough to remember the smog in the 50s , going to school with a scarf over my mouth and the dirty patch in front of where I’d been breathing through. That smog killed lots of elderly people. The gases ULEZ is going to reduce are invisible but just as deadly to vulnerable individuals.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...proving-health-studies?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
It's to do with congestion and air quality apparently. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it so far!
[/QUOTE
It’s not Jacob if it was the Government can set legislate vehicle standards for emissions but the Mayor of London is not the Government.
Ah go on
The Bromley pea soup era eh? Can’t fault you for caring for the environment but that 1 in 10 vehicles that don’t comply is not producing all the pollution so you will see little change.
You may be a little miffed when you get an additional charge every time you use your compliant £6000 car though?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I see where you are getting this stuff from Ulez legal challenge may proceed, High Court rules
It's subject to judicial review. Not finished yet.
Just have to hope it passes. If not then no doubt the rules will be changed as these moves seem highly desirable and long overdue.
More here - it looks like Ulez will survive and expand: Will the law stop the ULEZ expansion? Challenges, proposals and non-starters - OnLondon
Last edited:
No harm in asking
No I didn’t get this stuff from a quick scan of the internet Jacob I got it by living and working in the affected area.
It’s terrible seeing all the kiddies dragging their oxygen bottles to the playground and all the oldies keeling over from the pollution (must remember to tell my 95 year old fully active neighbour he’s doing it wrong).
If ULEZ was expanding for the health of my family I would happily endorse it.
It’s an excuse for the infrastructure for road charging so anyone who is smuggly looking on with a hybrid or fully electric car will get a nasty shock. Not literally I hope!
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Maybe you should google a little more, for your own information. You can't pretend it isn't happening - it's not exactly a recent discovery.
"In London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and a cost of between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service. There are different effects depending on the length and intensity of exposure."
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/33224
Very odd idea and a long way from the real issues. If they wanted to bring in another form of road charging for EVs they can anyway - no need for a long term deviously cunning plot it doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
Jameshow
Established Member
That's such a poor example!
A typical paid carer will visit 16-20 people within a 3mile radius and have to get between them will little travel time! Imagine that on public transport - your having a laugh!
Not to mention district nurses tradesmen etc!!
Every one of those had a full autopsy and their life history examined of course! Or someone analysed some statistics and made them fit a point of view?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Only in very built up areas, if at all. Carers tend to work for different agencies and have overlapping areas, no joined up thinking necessarily involved.
They tend to be better paid than carers, who are the bottom of the heap.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Oh so it's all lies then and we can rest easy - it's a good job we have you on the case!
I presume you have seen contradictory analysis of the statistics. Where was this, is it publicly available?
Or are you just guessing wildly?
Agent_zed
Established Member
The problem comes with that it is a blunt tool and ignores that over 1/2 of particulates from vehicles are from brakes, tyres and the road itself. swapping out a car to one that produces slightly less particulates from the exhaust doesn't have as much an effect as is implied. Combined with the fact that a new car had to be created to take the place of a perfectly working vehicle with all the pollution and energy involved in that. My 12yr old car gets 50+mpg and has a cat and DPF filter but is euro 4 so i would get charged £9 going into Bristol (my nearest ULEZ). My dads car that is 15yrs old petrol that does about 35mpg can go in for free. If I bought a new diesel BMW X5 rolling on 315/35/20's would I actually be producing less particulates, than my older euro 4 car, given the larger tyres and weight? A Tesla model 3 weighs around 1700kgs my car is 1450kg, so is ~250kg lighter when I'm scrubbing my tyres around the city (besides the pollution the tesla is causing from elec generation).
Perhaps a better system would be based on both emission category and weight, as weight is going to have a significant effect on tyre, brake and road surface particulates.
Perhaps a better system would be based on both emission category and weight, as weight is going to have a significant effect on tyre, brake and road surface particulates.
Oh so it's all lies then and we can rest easy - it's a good job we have you on the case!
I presume you have seen contradictory analysis of the statistics. Where was this, is it publicly available?
Or are you just guessing wildly?
Fairly sure I heard a quote somewhere that statistic are not always what they seem who commissioned that particular study?
- Status
