Do you want to discuss boring politics? (108 Viewers)

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
So basically ULEZ collects no money then. I guess Londoners are just whinging for nothing then.

Although this article says there were £218 million in unpaid fines.

You’re adding your own context there, I never remotely suggested that. The point is that there’s a myth that you need an expensive modern car to beat ULEZ. You just trotted it out yourself. The fact is by buying smarter you can buy a cheaper older car and beat ULEZ. You could buy a 20 year old petrol mini for under £2K, if you looked hard enough you’ll find one under £1K. Frothers overplay the ULEZ card massively.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
All classic cars over 40 years old are free of Ulez payments,a 5.2litre 1966 Dodge Charger is the way to go 😂
You’d be amazed how many classic car owners don’t know that. My best mate has a collection of classic cars and I went with him to an event at Gaydon last year and I must of heard Sadiq Khan is trying to ban classic cars half a dozen times. I think one person read it on social media so it must be right than the lie just multiplies in a community such as the classic car community.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You’re adding your own context there, I never remotely suggested that. The point is that there’s a myth that you need an expensive modern car to beat ULEZ. You just trotted it out yourself. The fact is by buying smarter you can buy a cheaper older car and beat ULEZ. You could buy a 20 year old petrol mini for under £2K, if you looked hard enough you’ll find one under £1K. Frothers overplay the ULEZ card massively.

That’s great logic Tony. So you are driving a 2015 diesel SUV for your family of 5- you first have to find a buyer for and then e a contortionist to fit in a 20 year old mini.

Another cunning plan by The Tonester.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The judiciary in general and especially the Supreme Court, introduced by Labour, is pretty left wing. The recent decision in relation to oil drilling in Surrey was yet another example of their bias and lack of common sense.

I think once you’re claiming the law is left wing and it’s all a conspiracy you’re a fair bit away from where you started which was Khan pocketing millions from poor drivers.

It’s OK to just say “I like old cars” you know. I know it doesn’t quite have the gravitas of a world spanning Marxist conspiracy but that’s fine.
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Or just raising revenue.


I was responding to a post suggesting that hardly any cars are affected by it, which surely can’t be the case.

You’ve quoted the Tax Payers Alliance back at me? Christ alive.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Bloody hell, must have met a different set of judiciary to the ones I've met in my time to see them as remotely left wing as a bloc...(!)
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
The point regarding those currently living in Greater London who are penalised for use of the car they had is reasonably fair. Strange, though, that a load of right-wing politicos (this is not levelled at anyone on here, while we’re at it) have decided this is the issue to run with. In the grand scheme of things they couldn’t give a fuck, it’s merely a desire at all costs to continue using fossil fuels for as long as possible.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Yeah... I'd like to think I am a lefty(!) I do have sympathy for drivers who are priced out as it does tend to be poorer people who suffer. Greater London is unusual though - to a degree you'd have to be a nutter to consider driving around it as the public transport system is actually quite good! I got away perfectly fine not owning a car for a year or two - and you can hire one for any journeys outside you want to take, and save money on insurance, servicing etc while at it...

Doesn't apply to all of the UK though. Imagine trying to commute to Warwick daily from parts of Coventry on public transport...
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I know we're in the era of not liking experts but this is the type of thing where surely you just look at the evidence. There must be some data on how this impacts things like air quality. London has had a congestion charge for long enough, that has to be available.

And there must also be data on the environmental impact of building new cars, scrapping old cars etc.

How hard can it be for someone to crunch the numbers?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
On a similar topic heard on the radio that the analysis of 20 mph zones shows it's effective on every metric. The main being a significant reduction in people being injured and also damage to vehicles. In fact it seems the only 'negative' is people speeding
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
That’s great logic Tony. So you are driving a 2015 diesel SUV for your family of 5- you first have to find a buyer for and then e a contortionist to fit in a 20 year old mini.

Another cunning plan by The Tonester.
You really are a moron. Another context adder thinking it means they’ve outsmarted you. As I said in a previous post there’s a ton of older cars that are ULEZ compliant, you just need to buy smarter, which is why it’s bypassed you. You can google what’s compliant very easily, what car have done dozens of articles on their own and guess what. The lists they’ve compiled include tons of 10 year old diesel SUV’s. Any diesel Kia SUV from the period you mentioned for example. If you were half as smart as you think you are you’d still be 10 times smarter than you actually are.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
I think once you’re claiming the law is left wing and it’s all a conspiracy you’re a fair bit away from where you started which was Khan pocketing millions from poor drivers.

It’s OK to just say “I like old cars” you know. I know it doesn’t quite have the gravitas of a world spanning Marxist conspiracy but that’s fine.
You only need to look at how JSO activists are let off scot free to then go and spray that affront to the environment - Stonehenge - orange to understand that the judiciary are biased. Khan has pocketed millions from drivers.

I do like some old cars, I also like a lot of new ICE vehicles. I Wouldn’t touch an EV for reasons I have already stated.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You really are a moron. Another context adder thinking it means they’ve outsmarted you. As I said in a previous post there’s a ton of older cars that are ULEZ compliant, you just need to buy smarter, which is why it’s bypassed you. You can google what’s compliant very easily, what car have done dozens of articles on their own and guess what. The lists they’ve compiled include tons of 10 year old diesel SUV’s. Any diesel Kia SUV from the period you mentioned for example. If you were half as smart as you think you are you’d still be 10 times smarter than you actually are.

It hasn’t bypassed me. What you are saying is anyone with a non compliant car has to sell it - well that’s easy as it’s non compliant - then buy another and hope it’s as reliable as the vehicle they were happy with.

You are turning into the Marie Antionette of this forum Tony.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
It hasn’t bypassed me. What you are saying is anyone with a non compliant car has to sell it - well that’s easy as it’s non compliant - then buy another and hope it’s as reliable as the vehicle they were happy with.

You are turning into the Marie Antionette of this forum Tony.
I think they get all of £2,000 if they scrap it though.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I think they get all of £2,000 if they scrap it though.

That’s lovely. Shame if they own a non compliant Land Rover with a price guide of £18,000 - still line up the mini folks
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
The point regarding those currently living in Greater London who are penalised for use of the car they had is reasonably fair. Strange, though, that a load of right-wing politicos (this is not levelled at anyone on here, while we’re at it) have decided this is the issue to run with. In the grand scheme of things they couldn’t give a fuck, it’s merely a desire at all costs to continue using fossil fuels for as long as possible.
I just don’t think banning new ICE vehicles from 2030, when the rest of the EU which Starmer loves is aiming for 2035. I am totally unconvinced that the generating and distribution capacity will be there, nor the public charging system. The roads will need massive investment to take the increase in average weight. I certainly wont be going anywhere near multi storey car parks.

As others have commented, reducing the weight of ICE vehicle’s would help. Reverse we some of the safety requirements, put an end to all the autonomous driving kit.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Thank you, an interesting article.

I appreciate there's a flip side to this especially for less well off motorists but the article hilights benefits, but what can be done to counter the drawbacks?
At least in London they do have a decent public transport network but its still a real trek into central London from some of the suburbs it's expanded in to
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It hasn’t bypassed me. What you are saying is anyone with a non compliant car has to sell it - well that’s easy as it’s non compliant - then buy another and hope it’s as reliable as the vehicle they were happy with.

You are turning into the Marie Antionette of this forum Tony.
It’s pretty clear whatever I say you’re either going to add your own context or move the goalposts again and again. I answered your gotcha directly with fact. Euro 6 came in in 2014 for manufacturing and then 2015 for registration and the truth is car manufacturers knew this was coming and were building compliant cars before those dates. The vast majority of cars on the roads are compliant and if you lived in or near to London and were regularly driving into London you probably owned a compliant car anyway simply by the fact you knew that you were going into the ULEZ at some point. If you live outside of London and have a non compliant car but need to go into the centre of London the answer is simple and will also make your life easier as a bonus, park up outside the zone (cheaper than parking in the Zone anyway) and jump on the tube (quicker and easier to navigate London than driving anyway). It’s as difficult as you want to make it, it’s really not that complicated. Unless you’re either a dumbass or being deliberately difficult thinking it makes you a martyr, although the two things ultimately mean the same. Considering you like to portray yourself as the forum’s motor industry expert you seem especially lacking.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
That’s lovely. Shame if they own a non compliant Land Rover with a price guide of £18,000 - still line up the mini folks
Again with the deliberately stupid. If the price guide of the land rover is £18,000 that’s £18,000 despite not being EURO 6, so it’s still the value. Might be more difficult to sell in London but that’s still the value. Sell it and buy a BMW or Volvo equivalent instead which will almost certainly be compliant despite being the same era of car, the same class and running on the same fuel. Sounds like you’re saying the real issue is JLR weren’t future proofing their cars when their competitors were.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It’s pretty clear whatever I say you’re either going to add your own context or move the goalposts again and again. I answered your gotcha directly with fact. Euro 6 came in in 2014 for manufacturing and then 2015 for registration and the truth is car manufacturers knew this was coming and were building compliant cars before those dates. The vast majority of cars on the roads are compliant and if you lived in or near to London and were regularly driving into London you probably owned a compliant car anyway simply by the fact you knew that you were going into the ULEZ at some point. If you live outside of London and have a non compliant car but need to go into the centre of London the answer is simple and will also make your life easier as a bonus, park up outside the zone (cheaper than parking in the Zone anyway) and jump on the tube (quicker and easier to navigate London than driving anyway). It’s as difficult as you want to make it, it’s really not that complicated. Unless you’re either a dumbass or being deliberately difficult thinking it makes you a martyr, although the two things ultimately mean the same. Considering you like to portray yourself as the forum’s motor industry expert you seem especially lacking.

Tony the RAC have identified 700,000 used vehicles are impacted by this - ie used vehicle parc in the Greater London area. So your comment “they probably owned a compliant car anyway” is classics Antionette behaviour. It’s factually inaccurate.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Tony the RAC have identified 700,000 used vehicles are impacted by this - ie used vehicle parc in the Greater London area. So your comment “they probably owned a compliant car anyway” is classics Antionette behaviour. It’s factually inaccurate.
Actually they haven’t. They used the word “could” but then worked on the premise that every diesel car registered before Sept 2015 isn’t compliant and every petrol car registered before Jan 2006 isn’t compliant. We’ve already dispelled that myth with facts. That article was also written before the expansion of ULEZ and the real time data shows that 95% of vehicles in inner and outer London ant ann given time are compliant since the expansion. Of all the 2.3m cars coming into London on a daily basis official figures show only 200K are non compliant. So the 700k number you misrepresented in the first place which was always based on questionable data turned out to be a complete misunderstanding/miscalculation of the real facts.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Actually they haven’t. They used the word “could” but then worked on the premise that every diesel car registered before Sept 2015 isn’t compliant and every petrol car registered before Jan 2006 isn’t compliant. We’ve already dispelled that myth with facts. That article was also written before the expansion of ULEZ and the real time data shows that 95% of vehicles in inner and outer London ant ann given time are compliant since the expansion. Of all the 2.3m cars coming into London on a daily basis official figures show only 200K are non compliant. So the 700k number you misrepresented in the first place which was always based on questionable data turned out to be a complete misunderstanding/miscalculation of the real facts.

How was the 200,000 calculated Tony? It’s not actually dispelling the 700,000 even by your own admission.

Do you know how the SMMT calculate the car parc out of interest?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
How was the 200,000 calculated Tony? It’s not actually dispelling the 700,000 even by your own admission.

Do you know how the SMMT calculate the car parc out of interest?
Playing dumb again? The 200K isn’t calculated it’s the actual data based on the daily average over a 1 month period. It completely dismisses the 700k and not surprisingly as the 700k was always a worse case scenario based on flawed assumptions such as all cars registered before Euro 6 and Euro 4 came into force for new registrations were non compliant which was never the case in reality.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The big point is a tiny minority of motorists are temporarily inconvenienced to the convenience of nearly 9m Londoners. The health benefits to Londoners and therefore the benefits to the NHS are indisputable from ULEZ. Those benefits will also only increase thanks to the expansion. Frankly anyone with an issue with ULEZ needs to grow the fuck up. It’s a massive nett benefit.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Playing dumb again? The 200K isn’t calculated it’s the actual data based on the daily average over a 1 month period. It completely dismisses the 700k and not surprisingly as the 700k was always a worse case scenario based on flawed assumptions such as all cars registered before Euro 6 and Euro 4 came into force for new registrations were non compliant which was never the case in reality.

It refers to the number of fines Tony doesn’t it not the actual number of cars potentially impacted? Also it’s a stat I believe from the mayoral data office?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It refers to the number of fines Tony doesn’t it not the actual number of cars potentially impacted? Also it’s a stat I believe from the mayoral data office?
Not from what I’ve read but if you’re saying it is the number of fines then surely that means that the number of no complaint cars in reality will be smaller again as some of those fines will be repeat offenders will they not?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Not from what I’ve read but if you’re saying it is the number of fines then surely that means that the number of no complaint cars in reality will be smaller again as some of those fines will be repeat offenders will they not?

Where is the source of this data?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top