RE: 2021 ULEZ expansion | PH Explains
Discussion
Too many such discussions talk about pollution in general, congestion, global warming etc.
In order to understand what's happening, it's important to appreciate that there is a specific problem with NOx (nitrogen oxide) pollution in high-traffic areas. Too much NOx in the air gives people breathing problems like asthma - not just in the city centre, but in the densely populated and high-traffic inner suburbs too.
For petrol cars, legal NOx limits were reduced to 80 mg/km with Euro 4 in Jan 2006. For diesel cars, they weren't cut to 80 mg/km until Euro 6 in Sept 2015.
Given the above, I think it's understandable that there's a tax on driving cars that aren't guaranteed to keep their NOx emissions below this limit, treating petrols and diesels the same. Unfortunate and inconvenient, but understandable.
It's also understandable that an old thirsty petrol engine (such as the aforementioned Maybach V12, or my AMG C55) is ULEZ-compliant because it met Euro 4, but a relatively recent and economical diesel isn't. Euro standards have *nothing* to do with fuel consumption or CO2 emissions, only the more toxic pollutants.
Worth knowing that manufacturers didn't wait until the last moment to produce Euro4 or Euro6 compatible engines, they were introduced into their range in the years leading up to the enforcement point, so you can find earlier cars that meet the standards. Note that imports from outside the EU are assumed to comply only from the enforcement date of the relevant Euro standard, ie Jan 06 for petrols and Sep 15 for diesels.
Edit: a map is probably the most useful graphic in this discussion
In order to understand what's happening, it's important to appreciate that there is a specific problem with NOx (nitrogen oxide) pollution in high-traffic areas. Too much NOx in the air gives people breathing problems like asthma - not just in the city centre, but in the densely populated and high-traffic inner suburbs too.
For petrol cars, legal NOx limits were reduced to 80 mg/km with Euro 4 in Jan 2006. For diesel cars, they weren't cut to 80 mg/km until Euro 6 in Sept 2015.
Given the above, I think it's understandable that there's a tax on driving cars that aren't guaranteed to keep their NOx emissions below this limit, treating petrols and diesels the same. Unfortunate and inconvenient, but understandable.
It's also understandable that an old thirsty petrol engine (such as the aforementioned Maybach V12, or my AMG C55) is ULEZ-compliant because it met Euro 4, but a relatively recent and economical diesel isn't. Euro standards have *nothing* to do with fuel consumption or CO2 emissions, only the more toxic pollutants.
Worth knowing that manufacturers didn't wait until the last moment to produce Euro4 or Euro6 compatible engines, they were introduced into their range in the years leading up to the enforcement point, so you can find earlier cars that meet the standards. Note that imports from outside the EU are assumed to comply only from the enforcement date of the relevant Euro standard, ie Jan 06 for petrols and Sep 15 for diesels.
Edit: a map is probably the most useful graphic in this discussion
Edited by samoht on Saturday 23 October 09:43
We all see even relatively newish (under 10 years old) diesel cars spewing out black clouds of soot whenever they accelerate. Multiply by XX,000 a day, and you can see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids breathing that in every day.
Happy that nudge economics are finally being used in the right areas.
Happy that nudge economics are finally being used in the right areas.
My mate's W-reg Focus 1.6 petrol doesn't qualify, even though an identical model a couple of years newer would. So instead of continuing to run a well-maintained and efficient car that's been in his family for 20 years, he's started commuting in a diesel Series 3 Land Rover which - despite being much more polluting than the Focus - is exempt.
Given the very low mileage that most privately-owned cars in London cover, contributing to the production of a new vehicle is surely far more damaging for the environment than continuing to make use of an existing vehicle for covering the occasional short journey.
Given the very low mileage that most privately-owned cars in London cover, contributing to the production of a new vehicle is surely far more damaging for the environment than continuing to make use of an existing vehicle for covering the occasional short journey.
braddo said:
Wrong.
The cities are mandated by government to clean up air pollution.
He's not wrong that he's a loon - just wrong that he's a loon for this. The cities are mandated by government to clean up air pollution.
The rediculously wide cycleways, changes to bus lanes and no left turns that sprung up all over the place during covid, with no consultation's, are staggering.
Apparently they were temporary to help with social distancing. I just cant see how they are: looking at the money that must have been spent. And they are still being added to now.
Bought a 2006 Supercharged 4.2 Range Rover a few years ago, sold it last year for a lot more than I thought, sold to a guy from central London who asked a lot whether it was ULEZ compliant, which it is.
Some irony that when we bought it we paid less than for a diesel, the shocking fuel consumption etc and when we go to sell it has become more desirable.
Happily replaced it with a 2010 5.0 S/C too
Some irony that when we bought it we paid less than for a diesel, the shocking fuel consumption etc and when we go to sell it has become more desirable.
Happily replaced it with a 2010 5.0 S/C too
S600BSB said:
Air quality is awful in some boroughs. Understandable and probably overdue action.
I imagine it's the boroughs that straddle the 'ring' roads around the congestion zone. Nothing moves. Mainly commercial traffic, lorries and buses belching smoke not going anywhere.
I live just outside the South Circ and those roads are always bad but God knows how they will deal with the extra traffic that doesn't want to go into the zone.
New areas that will suffer pollution from traffic going nowhere.
If the government want to sort the problem they need to ban the vehicles responsible and make London drivable again so traffic moves.
But I think they just want the money and obviously don't give a stuff about pollution.
urquattroGus said:
Bought a 2006 Supercharged 4.2 Range Rover a few years ago, sold it last year for a lot more than I thought, sold to a guy from central London who asked a lot whether it was ULEZ compliant, which it is.
Some irony that when we bought it we paid less than for a diesel, the shocking fuel consumption etc and when we go to sell it has become more desirable.
Happily replaced it with a 2010 5.0 S/C too
Hilarious really because assuming driving in the ULEZ 240 days of the year at the 17.7mpg and £600 road tax will cost about £10 a day vs a 35mpg car with lower CO2 - saving £2.50 a day. The extra £10 still largely goes to the treasury in VAT, fuel duty and road tax so not exactly 2 fingers to the man is it. Idiots.Some irony that when we bought it we paid less than for a diesel, the shocking fuel consumption etc and when we go to sell it has become more desirable.
Happily replaced it with a 2010 5.0 S/C too
howardhughes said:
The bottom line is the Government hates motorists. It's a simple as that.
Not introduced by the government. It has been introduced by the Lord Mayor of London. Both of these love cars because of the tax and charges they get from them, all added to their general finances.R.
paralla said:
With the average house price in London just over £500000 surely if you live there and your car isn’t ULEZ exempt you just change it for one that is.
If you bought your London average priced house 30 years ago it would have cost say £200,000. Just because the value now is £500,000 doesn't mean that you can easily afford to change your car.R.
D4rez said:
urquattroGus said:
Bought a 2006 Supercharged 4.2 Range Rover a few years ago, sold it last year for a lot more than I thought, sold to a guy from central London who asked a lot whether it was ULEZ compliant, which it is.
Some irony that when we bought it we paid less than for a diesel, the shocking fuel consumption etc and when we go to sell it has become more desirable.
Happily replaced it with a 2010 5.0 S/C too
Hilarious really because assuming driving in the ULEZ 240 days of the year at the 17.7mpg and £600 road tax will cost about £10 a day vs a 35mpg car with lower CO2 - saving £2.50 a day. The extra £10 still largely goes to the treasury in VAT, fuel duty and road tax so not exactly 2 fingers to the man is it. Idiots.Some irony that when we bought it we paid less than for a diesel, the shocking fuel consumption etc and when we go to sell it has become more desirable.
Happily replaced it with a 2010 5.0 S/C too
I think in fairness it was for high days and holidays.....Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff