France scraps ULEZ Zones

Author
Discussion

gruffalo

Original Poster:

7,849 posts

241 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
France has just voted to scrap the low emission zones they have been introducing over the last few years due to it adversely effecting the poorer in society the most.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mrpl2208no

Should we do the same here?

They do seem a bit daft as pollution blows around in the wind, Bristol has a coal fired steam train running inside their LEZ but non compliant cars have to pay to be inside the zone, they seem a bit daft.

Hoofy

78,495 posts

297 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
gruffalo said:
France has just voted to scrap the low emission zones they have been introducing over the last few years due to it adversely effecting the poorer in society the most.
I could have told them that.

What's funny is that if I pay £12.50, I can take a diesel van to the middle of London and drive round all day or even just leave it parked up with the engine on (I forget if that's legal or not) then just fill up and continue. But it's fine and healthy for London because I paid my £12.50!

williamp

19,809 posts

288 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
It just means we in the UK will pay more tax to take up the slack... rolleyes

richhead

2,444 posts

26 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
They were never about pollution

sherman

14,381 posts

230 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
And I just bought a Crit Air, cleaned my the inside of my car window and stuck it carefully in the windscreen banghead

andygo

7,134 posts

270 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
Yeah, I bought one last year, Waste of money even when it was a requirement!

The French ought to speak to Mr Khan in London, he will put them right on how to charge!

Edited by andygo on Thursday 29th May 20:49

Billy_Rosewood

3,355 posts

179 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
Don't see it happening here. Too much of a cash cow.

BunkMoreland

1,981 posts

22 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
Mistake IMO

I get the point above about if you pay the pollution doesn't matter. Which of course it doesn't.

But I'm in favour of less polluting cars (most often Euro5 and earlier diesels) being removed from our cities and by default lessened on our road networks. I live in the London Ulez zone, and its now noticeable when I am elsewhere and stuck behind some st spewing diesel. So its having the desired effect.

Even if we tacitly accept it's a fundraiser first, health thing second



CoolHands

20,698 posts

210 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
I was on the tube earlier and saw a sadiq khan brain-washing poster claiming the ULEZ results are in, and pollution is down 27%

Just searched and appears to be from this https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-pres...

Don’t believe a word the lying shysters say

tim0409

5,238 posts

174 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
It hasn’t been a success in Glasgow, with a study showing it had no meaningful impact and pollution actually increased outside the zone.

Edinburgh council spent £millions on their scheme, including scrapping perfectly serviceable vehicles from their own fleet to comply and replacing them, at the same time as they are cutting services to the most vulnerable in society. My issue is that there never seems to be any cost benefit analysis or consideration to the opportunity cost on these type of schemes, probably as it is ideological driven.

Randy Winkman

18,877 posts

204 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
As a Londoner I didn't agree with the extension in the first place but wouldn't like to see it go now after 2 years. The time has passed in my view. Especially because of the types of people pulling down cameras causing expense, inconvenience and danger for others. Especially at pedestrian crossings.

fido

17,735 posts

270 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
TFL earns around £3 billion per year - £0.25bn is from ULEZ, £0.3bn from Congestion Charge. Wouldn't mind if they just loaded it onto passenger fares. It should be subsidised at National level, not left to made-up taxes! To put this amount into perspective TfL estimates it loses approximately £0.13bn to fare evasion.

scenario8

7,103 posts

194 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
As a Londoner I didn't agree with the extension in the first place but wouldn't like to see it go now after 2 years. The time has passed in my view. Especially because of the types of people pulling down cameras causing expense, inconvenience and danger for others. Especially at pedestrian crossings.
Have there been significant recent activity of the type you describe in Bromley, then? I’ve not heard of much about this sort of thing for a long time.

Terminator X

17,658 posts

219 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
BunkMoreland said:
Mistake IMO

I get the point above about if you pay the pollution doesn't matter. Which of course it doesn't.

But I'm in favour of less polluting cars (most often Euro5 and earlier diesels) being removed from our cities and by default lessened on our road networks. I live in the London Ulez zone, and its now noticeable when I am elsewhere and stuck behind some st spewing diesel. So its having the desired effect.

Even if we tacitly accept it's a fundraiser first, health thing second
They could just ban ICE from cities if deadly serious about it all.

TX.

spikyone

1,737 posts

115 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
BunkMoreland said:
Mistake IMO

I get the point above about if you pay the pollution doesn't matter. Which of course it doesn't.

But I'm in favour of less polluting cars (most often Euro5 and earlier diesels) being removed from our cities and by default lessened on our road networks. I live in the London Ulez zone, and its now noticeable when I am elsewhere and stuck behind some st spewing diesel. So its having the desired effect.

Even if we tacitly accept it's a fundraiser first, health thing second
They could just ban ICE from cities if deadly serious about it all.

TX.
Nail on head. If you want to reduce pollution, you simply ban the most polluting vehicles (unless they are registered to drivers living inside the zone). You don't let those vehicles in as long as their driver pays the tax. As with pretty much all environmental initiatives, priority number 1 appears to be ensuring someone is making money from it.

The thing that blows my mind is that I can freely drive a 5 litre V8 around most of those zones yet someone driving a 25 year old 1.1 Fiesta would have to pay...

croyde

24,737 posts

245 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
sherman said:
And I just bought a Crit Air, cleaned my the inside of my car window and stuck it carefully in the windscreen banghead
Same here. Seen more in cars here in the UK than I saw in France.

Another trip planned and now I need a fking German one. It takes 7 to 14 days to be delivered but I wanted to go tomorrow.

I miss the days when I used to just jump in the car/on the bike, on a whim and head off to Europe.

Now you have to preplan and prepay. In Belgium you need a different sticker for different cities.

So no, I'm a bit knackered, let's stop at Antwerp, oh st! I didn't buy a fekin sticker before leaving.

Rough101

2,697 posts

90 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
Glasgow is fines only, you don’t pay to use it at all. That’s a bit more serious than just a tax, as they also multiply the fines.

Captain Smerc

3,190 posts

131 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
BunkMoreland said:
Mistake IMO

I get the point above about if you pay the pollution doesn't matter. Which of course it doesn't.

But I'm in favour of less polluting cars (most often Euro5 and earlier diesels) being removed from our cities and by default lessened on our road networks. I live in the London Ulez zone, and its now noticeable when I am elsewhere and stuck behind some st spewing diesel. So its having the desired effect.

Even if we tacitly accept it's a fundraiser first, health thing second
Agreed.

sherman

14,381 posts

230 months

Thursday 29th May
quotequote all
croyde said:
sherman said:
And I just bought a Crit Air, cleaned my the inside of my car window and stuck it carefully in the windscreen banghead
Same here. Seen more in cars here in the UK than I saw in France.

Another trip planned and now I need a fking German one. It takes 7 to 14 days to be delivered but I wanted to go tomorrow.

I miss the days when I used to just jump in the car/on the bike, on a whim and head off to Europe.

Now you have to preplan and prepay. In Belgium you need a different sticker for different cities.

So no, I'm a bit knackered, let's stop at Antwerp, oh st! I didn't buy a fekin sticker before leaving.
Got the German one too.

daqinggregg

4,493 posts

144 months

Friday 30th May
quotequote all
Although it does not affect me personally, I understand the need for ULEZ in cities, where air quality might be poor.

I also recognise that it may place an unnecessary burden on those less well off, but since when was car ownership a necessity/right, even less so in a city with good public transport infrastructure.

However, when cities like Aberdeen adopted the scheme, I was less convinced it was about pollution and more to do with revenue generation.

Never have comparisons, been more apt ‘No urinating zone of a swimming pool’ ‘No smoking area of a restaurant’ ‘No children…………….’

If you’ve ever been to Aberdeen, you’ll know the chance of pollution hanging around for a quick smoke, is highly unlikely.