I’ve got a 2009 shit box petrol Ford Focus worth about £2k (if you only look at it when buying it when it’s dark). And assumed I’d have to pay the ULEZ charges. Just checked and I don’t.
Is it just diesels with the issue then? Because there’s definitely cheap old petrol cars out there that will be fine if so.
Petrols made since 2006 and diesels made since 2015 are compliant
I’ve got a 2009 shit box petrol Ford Focus worth about £2k (if you only look at it when buying it when it’s dark). And assumed I’d have to pay the ULEZ charges. Just checked and I don’t.
Is it just diesels with the issue then? Because there’s definitely cheap old petrol cars out there that will be fine if so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your motor is lovely, and keeping old cars on the road is arguably a very green policy. But at that age it might be heading for an expensive fix at some point, so might not be an ideal solution for everyone.
Also, as demand rises, so do prices - our old fiat actually cost me more to buy this year than it would've last year. Conversely my Hyundai diesel (which is marginally newer), will have tanked. I'm flogging it when I get a chance before it's worth bugger all!
Yeah good point to be fair. I’ve had a few bits done, timing belt, full service every year etc. So it’s not dirt cheap overall to run. But not a patch on buying something newer. Plus I don’t care about cars really.
I think it was more of a case of the tories ramping up anti ULEZ feeling during the campaignI wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.
The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.
There's a lot to be said for that mate, and that approach. I love cars and bikes, but there are more important things in life than having a shiny new one, at least to me. Maybe I'd feel different if I was better off!
That said, keeping an old motor on the road feels like a full time job sometimes!
It begs the question what the point is if it's so few and they'll become naturally obsolete...I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.
The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.
I think it was more of a case of the tories ramping up anti ULEZ feeling during the campaign
Come the general election ULEZ schemes will likely play no part in any election
I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.
The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.
I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.
The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.
It’s a stop gap. It’s worked too in its objective. The BMJ say the evidence is irrefutable, it’s improved the health of people who live in the zones.It begs the question what the point is if it's so few and they'll become naturally obsolete...
It begs the question what the point is if it's so few and they'll become naturally obsolete...
Yes only a very tiny number
Standard right wing tactic of weaponising am issue so that people who aren't even affected by it become scared of it.
It either affects people, in which case people are affected, or it doesn't in which case it seems a meaningless policy really.over 8 million are over 13 years old - as a guess I’d say there must be at least 6 to 8 million diesel vehicles that would be impacted
Yes only a very tiny number
Standard right wing tactic of weaponising am issue so that people who aren't even affected by it become scared of it.
You could be right mate, and I'd hate to become a right wing mouthpiece, especially as I'm not getting the going rate for it.
But I think there's a fair amount of justified concern personally, and ignoring it is the wrong approach. Here's the local council (Tory) survey, with some figures that suggest it's not exactly a tiny minority who have issues.
Weaponising 50% of the electorate do much they couldn’t be bothered to vote
Only about 40% of the cars on the road are older than 10 years and only a percentage of them will be diesel, so you’re talking about a percentage of a percentage. I’d also bet that London bucks that trend compared to the rest of the UK precisely because it does have a ULEZ and has done for almost 5 years. You also have to consider that expansion isn’t going to affect those already within the ULEZ so you’re talking about a percentage of a percentage of a percentage.I honestly, and politely, think that's a misunderstanding. A lot of people, even in that part of the world, are struggling but still need their cars.
A lot of them won't have the confidence, time, or funds to to change from one old banger to another. They're going to resent bring forced into it (or into substantial extra expense) without any support, even for those that accept the reasons are justified.
The issue with Heathrow was about noise pollution and night flights as I recall, as much as air quality etc.. I could be wrong there though, I don't live there these days.
Isn't a sophisticated electorate one that votes on issues that don't affect them directly? I mean, the state of benefits and dearth of council houses doesn't affect me directly, but it wouldn't stop me voting on policies relating to them.I generally agree with your overall view on it
What I mean is they managed to convince a lot of people who it doesn't affect that it's a big issue for them.
Isn't a sophisticated electorate one that votes on issues that don't affect them directly? I mean, the state of benefits and dearth of council houses doesn't affect me directly, but it wouldn't stop me voting on policies relating to them.
The implication otherwise I'd a very Tory I'm alright Jack and sod policies that don't affect me.
It's OK I didn't expect you to understand.
But you were saying it affected a minority so why were they voting on it? The extension of that is social care affects a minority, so why are we voting on it? Care for asylum seekers etcYes, that's the point I'm making!
People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.
The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.
Yes, that's the point I'm making!
People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.
The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.
But you were saying it affected a minority so why were they voting on it? The extension of that is social care affects a minority, so why are we voting on it? Care for asylum seekers etc
So despite all that Labour couldn’t muster up enough of a vision to inspire 1000 non-voters to turn up to the ballot box and make it all immaterial?Yes, that's the point I'm making!
People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.
The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.
So despite all that Labour couldn’t muster up enough of a vision to inspire 1000 non-voters to turn up to the ballot box and make it all immaterial?
But you were saying it affected a minority so why were they voting on it? The extension of that is social care affects a minority, so why are we voting on it? Care for asylum seekers etc
The tory vote declined didn’t it?
Now compare it to other by election results.
It's not difficult.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?