ULEZ

Witzend your Mum was lucky enough to be able to take a taxi when she needed one, but the truth is that taxis are really expensive if you have to take them a few times a week.
My Mum can run her old car for far less than a constant taxi to constantly shuttle her around.There’s still the faff of ordering one and hoping it turns up on time and being with a stranger who often hardly speaks much English.It would ruin Mum’s life at the mo if she couldn’t drive.

nicennanny the mayor does not have the powers to ban cars outright.

Oreo What you and others seem not to take on board is that ULEZ compliant cars have been around since 2005 and earlier. So anyone with a (non-diesel) 18 years old and younger will already be running a ULEZ car, and as most cars are scrapped by the time they are 15 years old, I would expect most of those on small incomes to already have ULEZ cars, even for 'poor people' card do not last for ever.

I have not seen much in the news about low income car owners protesting ULEZ so I am beginning to think its another of these causes that bleeding heart well off people wail about 'the poor', while those on smaller incomes continue to drive their 12 year old ULEZ cars and wonder what the fuss is all about..

That or the well off people are using 'the poor' as a camoflage to hide their irritation at having to replace their diesel fuelled 4 x 4s

M0nica

Oreo What you and others seem not to take on board is that ULEZ compliant cars have been around since 2005 and earlier. So anyone with a (non-diesel) 18 years old and younger will already be running a ULEZ car, and as most cars are scrapped by the time they are 15 years old, I would expect most of those on small incomes to already have ULEZ cars, even for 'poor people' card do not last for ever.

I have not seen much in the news about low income car owners protesting ULEZ so I am beginning to think its another of these causes that bleeding heart well off people wail about 'the poor', while those on smaller incomes continue to drive their 12 year old ULEZ cars and wonder what the fuss is all about..

That or the well off people are using 'the poor' as a camoflage to hide their irritation at having to replace their diesel fuelled 4 x 4s

Oh, join the ranks of the unempathetic, MOnica.

I can't say I noticed a great outpouring of empathy for 'the poor' when ULEZ was brought in for central London. Yet a lot of the arguments being made now would have applied then...

'The poor' don't always get a lot of empathy when talked about in connection with other issues, such as the effects of food price inflation and use of food banks...

We, as a group, clearly have differing sorts of empathy blocks...

Twitter and social media tends to have a particular middle class bent so maybe you woulnt. It's why Brexit was quite a shock to many.

I have actually think there is a building counter protest movement to some of the stop oil protests etc. Its going to be interesting to watch.

M0nica

Oreo What you and others seem not to take on board is that ULEZ compliant cars have been around since 2005 and earlier. So anyone with a (non-diesel) 18 years old and younger will already be running a ULEZ car, and as most cars are scrapped by the time they are 15 years old, I would expect most of those on small incomes to already have ULEZ cars, even for 'poor people' card do not last for ever.

I have not seen much in the news about low income car owners protesting ULEZ so I am beginning to think its another of these causes that bleeding heart well off people wail about 'the poor', while those on smaller incomes continue to drive their 12 year old ULEZ cars and wonder what the fuss is all about..

That or the well off people are using 'the poor' as a camoflage to hide their irritation at having to replace their diesel fuelled 4 x 4s

Mum’s car isn’t ULEZ compliant but fortunately we all left London some time ago.Had we stayed then it would be a problem.Other older people in London and the Home Counties without ULEZ compliant cars do have a problem and that’s what you and others fail to take on board.
Bleeding heart well off people?Oh so wrong that it’s laughable.
If 11% of people in inner and outer London have non compliant cars ( MaizieD’s figures ) then that’s a lot of people.
It will be Khan’s downfall like the poll tax did for Maggie Thatcher.

Well my little 4x4 is 19 yrs old this month -still reliable and will hate to scrap it/give it up as this model is very easy to slide my behind/butt/posterior whatever you like to say and most taxis are too low to get into and out of comfortably..people with some physical restrictions/conditions will understand this and others not..

MaizieD
Do you live in a cave? Haven’t you seen the media outpourings about the price of food and worries about those on low incomes? There were protests about ULEZ being brought in for those in central London, even tho you didn’t notice them. There’s also concern that foodbank use is spiralling and SM has been full of all these concerns.

Don't try the train as an alternative .......

If 11% of people in inner and outer London have non compliant cars ( MaizieD’s figures ) then that’s a lot of people.

4% of non compliant cars owned in central London. I assume that some of the 7% in greater London had to use their cars to get into central London when ULEZ first brought in.

Why no outcry when it was first implemented? I very much suspect it was because it hadn't been politicised and splashed across the right wing press...

Nothing will not cause problems for some people, but 11%, however large/small the figure is barely one vehicle in ten. I do not underestimate the problem for those in the 10%, but I am just getting fed up with every little bit of progress in any way for anything is objected to on the basis that 100% of people agree and are effected.

If everything had to be approved by everyone before any change, we would be lucky to have got our of the paleolithic into the neolithic period, we would not have antibiotics because some people are allergic to pennicillin and it could kill them

Look at the protests about cars when they first used on the roads. Now look at the protests because some people want to remove some of them becuase it will reduce road pollution and protect all those 'poor' people. more of whose children have asthma compared with better off children.

You will say my arguments are ludicrous, but the same applies to those defending the most polluting cars on the road.

Yes just claiming my refund. And vowing never to travel by train again.

Am all for change when it’s good, but this law is just plain unfair and hits the poorest in society, that can’t be denied.
Those who have polluting cars can continue to pollute as long as they have the money to pay up.Those who can’t afford to pay the tax have to give up their cars.That just isn’t right.

Galaxy

Yes just claiming my refund. And vowing never to travel by train again.

What happened to you? Train travel is hardly ever a pleasure and sometimes downright horrible.

I am not actually defending polluting cars, I am saying it's a complex issue and not just a case of goodies and baddies.

Oh booked tickets to a holiday in Norfolk (from North East) before strike announced, luckily I was able to organise return in a car when my return journey was cancelled. I rarely travel by trains it's generally just awful.

Bad luck about the strike. I used to like train travel but not now!

Although never one to condone criminal behaviour, I must admit to having a huge amount of sympathy for the ‘blade runners’ who are managing to put a large percentage of the hated cameras out of action.

Even Khan has admitted that his scheme will only make a negligible effect on pollution.

The reason that there wasn’t as much dissent over ULEZ in inner London is that public transport is more readily available there. Much easier to get around in inner London.
The outer suburbs have infrequent and often crowded busses. Trains (when not on strike) are not as accessible.
This is a real problem for folk unable to walk a mile or two to a railway station.

I reckon the people damaging cameras are the same sort of people that defend statues. I also bet very few of them are affected by ULEZ

Ilovecheese

I reckon the people damaging cameras are the same sort of people that defend statues. I also bet very few of them are affected by ULEZ

There is something rather upsetting about a former tory Minister, a former leader of the tory party, no less, actually condoning criminal damage.

I trust that the people damaging cameras will be caught and feel the full force of the law.

I live outside the zone but not by much. My car is not compliant. When my daughter lived with me we used her car, which was compliant, for trips into London, but she has moved abroad recently and lent her car to my DiL who lives in Yorkshire. When DD comes back to the UK she'll have to get the train from Heathrow as picking her up would cost too much now!

Glasgow have banned non compliant cars from the city centre. There isn't the option to pay a charge, it is a complete ban with a very large fine if you drive in at all. My DD lived there for a while and she warned me this summer as I was going on holiday to Scotland and she didn't want me to get fined. Thankfully I only took the motorway near Glasgow and only the centre of the city is affected.

I live yards from caz -clean air zone- in my city. DH pays daily £9 charge to work within it and then charges his clients that cost by adding it to their bill. Not sure how that keeps clean air.