‘but NoX from the increasing number of diesels provided a countervailing increase.’ Good news from a NoX perspective is that new diesel registrations have fallen from a cliff, now down to 3.9% market share year to date.

The good news for NOx was the introduction of Euro 6, which are still allowed in the ULEZ without charge - next on the list are domestic gas central heating and cooking which produce more NOx than road vehicles!

On one hand we are penalizing everyone in order to comply with net zero, but at the same time people demanding right to pollute because they are not ready to spend money to upgrade their cars.

ULEZ is about reducing localised pollution from NOx and particulates.

CO2/net zero is a seperate target.

I bought a 2016 diesel which has add blue to reduce emissions so I shelled out according to the wisdom of the day. Apparently not good enough now.

The pollution rationale for the introduction of ULEZ is a smokescreen.

Only about 10% of vehicles will be affected by ULEZ. As non-compliant vehicles age and are sc***ped, revenues will shrink - one estimate is that by 2027 the revenues from ULEZ will barely cover the costs of operation.

Despite being a Labour mayor, ULEZ will impact those least able to afford it - basically those driving older lower value vehicles - somewhat strange politically. So why introduce a policy which (a) affects those least able to afford it, and (b) is inherently self limiting.

I assume the goal to put infrastructure in place - cameras, charging mechanisms etc. In future years the scope will be extended - possibly when Euro 7 standards are introduced (2025??) or to all ICE as EV becomes mandatory in 2030/2035.

I think you need to put a bit more thought into this hypothesis. Stating that it's a smokescreen but not really knowing what for suggests that it's probably not.

Meanwhile, there are Air Quality Standards regulations that need to be met, and old cars are the low hanging fruit.

Despite being a Labour mayor, ULEZ will impact those least able to afford it - basically those driving older lower value vehicles - somewhat strange politically. So why introduce a policy which (a) affects those least able to afford it, and (b) is inherently self limiting.

I assume the goal to put infrastructure in place - cameras, charging mechanisms etc. In future years the scope will be extended - possibly when Euro 7 standards are introduced (2025??) or to all ICE as EV becomes mandatory in 2030/2035.

'Assume' is doing some very heavy lifting in that last paragraph.

It is of course possible, once the infrastructure is in place, to expand the scheme up to and including a daily charge as with the congestion charge in Central London.

I've not seen any evidence that such a change is being actively considered, still less that its part of the rationale for what is already in place.

The aim is to reduce NOx and particulates in the air. Except in so far as the proceeds support TFL it's not intended to redistribute money from one class of citizens to another.

I agree older, and mid age, diesels in the hands of the squeezed middle are going to be caught. Given that petrol cars post 2005 are compliant I'm less convinced the burden on those with very low incomes is anything like as bad as opponents will have us believe.

In any event, as Sadiq K pointed out on the radio this morning, the really poor cannot afford a car at all.

Small business users in pre 2016 light vans are probably real losers and, I think, get some mitigation. Certainly, of those opponents/victims I've heard interviewed, people like children's entertainers, gardners and mobile hairdressers for whom £12.50 a day is a significant part of their takings seem hard done by. Less so builders, plumbers etc for whom I suspect £12.50 is soon lost amongst chargeable expenses. How did folks like sandwich delivery services allocate the congestion charge when it started?

Are those who'd say ban ULEZ happy with the effects of NOX etson children and others with Asthma being ignored?

Edited by Bromptonaut on 29/08/2023 at 10:23

Miss the old days when we just discussed cars on HJ and the man himself would have all the facts and sage advice on so many issues.

Feel free to start a thread. I would certainly welcome discussion more focussed on cars and less on this concocted 'culture war' that we all have to live through.

I suppose the only rational way to respond to barmy conspiracists is simply not to ?

To be honest, the more radical thoughts don't really bother me as anyone can see that they are outside of the mainstream and form their own opinion around them.

What I don't like is the movement towards everyone (in general, not specifically on this forum) having to be on one of two 'teams' in any discussion. It has been deliberately stoked by the Government, and encouraged by the media. It seems to come from a need to label everything and everybody.

I think affected people are mostly small traders with old diesel vans.

Although newspapers are publishing stories that grandmother can't see kids etc. etc.

Mark 1 (2002-8() Honda Jazz are ULEZ compliant. At sale for £1 - £4k. Lots being bought for ULEZ and with magic seats can act as a small van.

So poor not being squeezed out - I assume Fiestas etc are similar.

If people want to buy cars for ULEZ there ARE cheap alternatives. But as this has been known in advance for years, I have little sympathy for those who do not plan ahead.

What's the cheapest working ULEZ compliant Transit out there?

I was only addressing the car issues as I had something relevant to say.

I know nothing of vans except old ones tend to be smelly, noisy and often badly driven by people who think mobile phones are a driving aid. :-) Of course London driven Transits may well be an exception.

Edited by madf on 29/08/2023 at 10:58

Following a 17 Reg Peugeot Van this morning throwing out black diesel smoke but ULEZ compliant makes me wonder if the money would be better spent carrying out spot checks on vehicle exhaust fumes and increasing the fines .

We all know that things can change dramatically during the 12 months following an MOT and that some emissions tests are not carried out consciously.