Khan Can

[Bper]

Sadiq Khan has won the court case brought by a number of councils over the expansion of the EULEZ zone. This is extremely bad news for all motorist who will be affected by this action.🤬

 

[Big_D]

Oh Fiddlestix ( a much stronger word than [Removed] )

[Roy124]

6 hours ago, Bper said:

Sadiq Khan has won the court case brought by a number of councils over the expansion of the EULEZ zone. This is extremely bad news for all motorist who will be affected by this action.🤬

 

It occurs to me that while he may now have permission actually implementing the ULEZ may not happen soon.

As Starmer and Blair both counsel against is as it will affect votes. 

[Cyker]

He's determined to bring it in this August, no matter how many it harms.

It turns out he has absolute power and nobody can force him to stop, so in Trumpian fashion he's just going to go ahead and do it in spite of the protests of everyone here.

We can't vote him out until next year, and you can bet your donkey whoever gets in will be like "Oooh well it's in place now and it would cost too much to reverse it."

Even then, unless everyone votes for the conservative candidate, whoever that will be, there's little chance to dig him out, given how many people voted for him in for his 2nd term despite all the warnings that he'd extend the ULEZ again.

Now we can look forward to the local economy going down the toilet as the exodus of people leaving London since the pandemic accelerates, and all the councils start squeezing the diminishing pool of residents for more taxes.

Then again maybe I'm just being pessimistic...

[anchorman]

I think it’s brilliant.  It’s about time someone had the goolies, Burnham has backed down.  It’s a step towards net zero but it wants rolling out now.  We sit here whining while half the world burns.  

[Big_D]

He's forced me out of London. As much as the Good Lady and myself would like to do the "Tourist" bit and see the sights of London, I'll now go and spend my money elsewhere.

[Bper]

This is not democracy and never will be, we are living in unprecedented times. We are all being walked over by these authoritarian dictators who have no regard for public opinion. Despite the financial and legal strength of the 5 councils that opposed this action along with all the evidence put forward by them, Khan won.This is nothing more then a revenue collection.The next implementations to follow this will be pay per mile and of course the 15 minute cities.

Whatever the opposition by the public these will go ahead,cities and towns will be ruined by these polices and the people may rue the day for allowing them to do this. Vote these people out its the only way to stop them.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, anchorman said:

I think it’s brilliant.  It’s about time someone had the goolies, Burnham has backed down.  It’s a step towards net zero but it wants rolling out now.  We sit here whining while half the world burns.  

It would be if it was actually about pollution, but it isn't - It's about money, pure and simple. I was going to post more but it turned into a massive foaming rant so in the interests of my blood pressure, I'll just leave it at this:

None of this is to benefit us, it's to line his coffers - Don't be fooled by his slick snakeoil words.

[CPN]

50 minutes ago, Cyker said:

None of this is to benefit us, it's to line his coffers - Don't be fooled by his slick snakeoil words.

I was going to have a rant too (about the ridiculousness of "Net zero") but life's too short and you've summed it up nicely

[anchorman]

Frankly I don’t care what the motives are, anything less than Euro 6 needs to go and so do manual gearboxes.  It might not affect us but it will affect future generations.  

[Derek.w]

You can bet that other cities will just copy it or and expand on the park and ride infostructure.

If you want to drive into any city its going to hit your pocket so cost effective to catch a train or bus into the any city from maybe next year!.

[anchorman]

6 hours ago, Derek.w said:

You can bet that other cities will just copy it or and expand on the park and ride infostructure.

If you want to drive into any city its going to hit your pocket so cost effective to catch a train or bus into the any city from maybe next year!.

Unless you’ve got an E6 car which many do now but your example makes a lot of sense anyway.  

[PCM]

Both our cars, a tiny one and an RX will be fine...

For me it's the Congestion Charge that would hurt the most.

Or am I missing something?

[Cyker]

It's not Euro6, that's only for diesels (The diesels HIS party told us to get in the first place!); It's Euro4 for petrols, which is why it's apparently fine to drive a 3 litre V6 behemoth SUV that barely gets 15mpg, but not a 1.4 diesel capable of 60+mpg.

Because its all the rich people that bought the V6 fuel-wasting behemoths, but us idiots that bought the small economical diesels.

 

[anchorman]

2 hours ago, Cyker said:

It's not Euro6, that's only for diesels (The diesels HIS party told us to get in the first place!); It's Euro4 for petrols, which is why it's apparently fine to drive a 3 litre V6 behemoth SUV that barely gets 15mpg, but not a 1.4 diesel capable of 60+mpg.

Because its all the rich people that bought the V6 fuel-wasting behemoths, but us idiots that bought the small economical diesels.

 

It’s not about fuel consumption it’s about harmful emissions.  You should know better and your car is fine so why are you so emotive about it?

[Roy124]

11 hours ago, Derek.w said:

You can bet that other cities will just copy it or and expand on the park and ride infostructure.

If you want to drive into any city its going to hit your pocket so cost effective to catch a train or bus into the any city from maybe next year!.

Want implies choice.  Who really wants to drive into any city?  Need will either hit your pocket, delivery drivers for instance, and us for higher delivery charges.

Want, and avoiding Want might save money:)

At £12.50 a day and a 5 day week you are looking at £3,000 pa.

Curiously, I see today that a Ulez compliant second hand car costs £3,000 more than a non-compliant.  Now there's a thing.

 

[Big_D]

17 hours ago, Cyker said:

It would be if it was actually about pollution, but it isn't - It's about money, pure and simple. I was going to post more but it turned into a massive foaming rant so in the interests of my blood pressure, I'll just leave it at this:

Too true @Cyker. I don't think it's ever been about pollution and emissions. It's all about the money. If it was about emissions, why are they not cleaning up the Underground where emissions are probably worse.

[yossarian247]

3 hours ago, anchorman said:

It’s not about fuel consumption it’s about harmful emissions.  You should know better and your car is fine so why are you so emotive about it?

But it's only about some harmful emissions. So you can still drive a 20 year old V8 petrol belching huge quantities of CO2 and not pay the £12.50, but a small 2015 diesel producing much less CO2 pays it. ULEZ has nothing to do with net zero, and may actually make overall CO2 emissions worse.

Broadly speaking, fuel consumption is directly proportional to CO2 emissions.

[Roy124]

Bob, you have heard about carbon capture underground?  Surely their emissions are underground.

Or perhaps, being electric, generation is elsewhere and the only emissions in London are sweat, tears, a pharts. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Big_D]

From what I understand, the air pollution on the London Underground is worse than the air pollution above ground.

So, is it about reducing air pollution (through emisions), or is it about generating income?

[anchorman]

5 minutes ago, yossarian247 said:

But it's only about some harmful emissions. So you can still drive a 20 year old V8 petrol belching huge quantities of CO2 and not pay the £12.50, but a small 2015 diesel producing much less CO2 pays it.

Broadly speaking, fuel consumption is directly proportional to CO2 emissions.

Forget trying to eke out a stab at petrol, it gets a grip of diesel too.  Maybe you should ask the residents in the street that burned down last summer or the millions worldwide that are effected by adverse weather. I’m not even a tree hugger but I can se it.  The trouble with the developed world is that it’s become entitled.  Nobody can stand being inconvenienced and if they do it’s someone else’s problem.  “My kid hasn’t got asthma, I don’t care.  My holiday might be effected so someone else can buy me a car and I’m ignoring the fact Putin has crashed the global economy,  someone needs to pay my mortgage”.  I could have bought the street with the interest I paid and years ago I’ve survived so get over it.  The ones that still run these polluters have to upgrade or pay up.  There’s an incentive.  

[yossarian247]

8 minutes ago, anchorman said:

Forget trying to eke out a stab at petrol, it gets a grip of diesel too.  Maybe you should ask the residents in the street that burned down last summer or the millions worldwide that are effected by adverse weather. I’m not even a tree hugger but I can se it.  The trouble with the developed world is that it’s become entitled.  Nobody can stand being inconvenienced and if they do it’s someone else’s problem.  “My kid hasn’t got asthma, I don’t care.  My holiday might be effected so someone else can buy me a car and I’m ignoring the fact Putin has crashed the global economy,  someone needs to pay my mortgage”.  I could have bought the street with the interest I paid and years ago I’ve survived so get over it.  The ones that still run these polluters have to upgrade or pay up.  There’s an incentive.  

What?!

As I've just explained, ULEZ is nothing whatsoever to do with net zero or climate change, it's about local air quality.

ULEZ places a limit on PM and NOx, but places no such limit on CO2 emissions. Therefore you can still drive a huge vehicle, producing massive amounts of CO2, and as long as it meets the limits for particulates and NOx that's fine as far as ULEZ is concerned.

 

[Roy124]

Nick, I think as Cyker says, if you want to cut noxious emissions you STOP  the emitter.

It's true that £3,000 per year might make the school mum think twice but having paid, what is that £12.50 being used for?  NOX scrubbers or what

 

[yossarian247]

29 minutes ago, Roy124 said:

Nick, I think as Cyker says, if you want to cut noxious emissions you STOP  the emitter.

It's true that £3,000 per year might make the school mum think twice but having paid, what is that £12.50 being used for?  NOX scrubbers or what

 

 

I personally think the big mistake Khan is making is including Euro 5 diesels in the charge. The Euro 5 diesel emissions limit was much cleaner than Euro 4 and all others which preceded it, and not actually very significantly worse than the current Euro 6 standard. If he had set the minimum requirement at Euro 5 it would have taken a lot of the very old diesels off the road, whilst allowing relatively clean 2011-2015 low-CO2 emitting diesels to remain. The limit could always have been lowered later. The fact that this is not the case suggests to me that ULEZ expansion is far more about the money than improving air quality!

Another annoyance to me is that Khan has repeatedly suggested that this is somehow going to help to reduce CO2 emissions, which is not the case at all! Either he genuinely doesn't understand the difference, which is concerning in itself, or he's cynically lying.

 

 

[Roy124]

56 minutes ago, yossarian247 said:

The limit could always have been lowered later.

In a way that could be worse.  A bit like the Brown initiative that had people switching to diesel  only to have diesel demonised in turn. 

If people upgraded old diesels (mine was an 05 diesel) to Euro 5 only to find them ulezed a couple of years down the road they would have been doubly dischuffed.

Why can I drive into London on Saturday morning without paying the congestion charge?  Can I drive round all day for free provided I don't leave and reenter?