All change 2025.

[flying banana]

It is not a matter for the London Mayor to dictate to counties surrounding London their health policies.

It is likely that traffic moving at 49-70mph produces significantly less pollutants than traffic dawdling on London’s crowded streets. If more traffic is pushed onto the M25 I expect there will be a net reduction in pollutants.

If I were charged £12.50 per day for using a car or £25 per day for using both cars, my car use would drop significantly and my bicycle use rise significantly. That would be a good thing.

It's alright banging on about your sodding bike. Outside of London the transport network is pathetic. We don't get n alternative. I can't cycle 33 mile to Sheffield at 5am for my shift everyday or night and then another 33 mile back after my 12 hour stint can I. But here is labour Sheffield introducing the same bull sh1t without providing a viable alternative. Not everyone lives In f#cking London with cycle lanes made of daisies and tubes built from duck feathers. But we are getting the same so called clean air zones. Sorry for the language, boils my p1ss. I HAVE to drive to work

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

It is not a matter for the London Mayor to dictate to counties surrounding London their health policies.

It is likely that traffic moving at 49-70mph produces significantly less pollutants than traffic dawdling on London’s crowded streets. If more traffic is pushed onto the M25 I expect there will be a net reduction in pollutants.

If I were charged £12.50 per day for using a car or £25 per day for using both cars, my car use would drop significantly and my bicycle use rise significantly. That would be a good thing.

So, if I lived in Rickmansworth Tom and wanted to go to Denham, I would most likely use the quiet road via Harefield to avoid the busy A412 or even busier M25. However, the expanded ULEZ would mean I incurred the £12.50 charge because Harefield is in the LB of Hillingdon. So now I would need to take one of the other (longer) routes where traffic is often well below the 49-70 mph you suggest. That’s the type of scenario I meant to illustrate.

 

[Viktorgeorge]

Do you also believe that David Ike is sane?

Yes. Nothing he has predicted has been insane and most of it proved true in time.

I think that Net Zero is insane, and climate change believers are in a cult but do not realise it.

 

[flying banana]

So, if I lived in Rickmansworth Tom and wanted to go to Denham, I would most likely use the quiet road via Harefield to avoid the busy A412 or even busier M25. However, the expanded ULEZ would mean I incurred the £12.50 charge because Harefield is in the LB of Hillingdon. So now I would need to take one of the other (longer) routes where traffic is often well below the 49-70 mph you suggest. That’s the type of scenario I meant to illustrate.

Exactly. And carbon emissions for the country as a whole go one way. UP

 

[Borris]

I expect there were those in the 1890s and well beyond who were convinced the transition from horse to ICE would never last.

The Blackwall Tunnel which opened in 1897 was designed and built specifically for horse traffic. I find it ironic that crossing the Thames by horse is no longer possible downstream of Tower Bridge, with the exception of the intermittently running Woolwich Ferry.

Sorry Tom, I am struggling to see your point.

 

[WelshGas]

Climate change caused by human activity is not a hoax. It is very real.

The ULEZ expansion is all about getting those who use London’s roads to pay for them. I wish the mayor would be honest about this and target ALL motorists not just those who can’t afford a modern engine.

About 50% of London households have no car. Why should those 50% be subsidising those who drive on London’s roads and contribute little or nothing extra for London’s roads?

So you are saying those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure . I didn’t realise that there were so many people in London who were totally self sufficient such that they never used supermarkets, local shops or travelled on Public Transport , never had anything delivered by Amazon or Royal Mail using the road system and will never have need of the emergency services who also use the road system.

 

[flying banana]

I'm going to buy a 40 Yr old polluting car that's exempt. Sod it,that's what I'll do. Only trouble is, which goes in the garage, the van or the old car?

 

[flying banana]

Yes. Nothing he has predicted has been insane and most of it proved true in time.

I think that Net Zero is insane, and climate change believers are in a cult but do not realise it.

Climate and weather are 2 different things. People that can't tell that difference are idiots

 

[Paul G - 2022 Ocean]

Introduction of Vehicle Excise Duty for zero emission cars, vans and motorcycles from 2025

www.gov.uk

On top of this, company car drivers who choose an EV will also start to see their BIK tax start to rise by 1 percentage point on the BIK scale each year from 2025 to 2028. Then there will no doubt be a new BIK tax system after 2028 based on a road user charging system.

 

[Paul G - 2022 Ocean]

When was the last time you visited a breakers yard?

Years ago vehicles were there because they were riddled with rust or had genuinely reached the end of their economic life. Not so today. Many vehicles are there not because they are beyond economical repair or have become dangerous but because of a consumer driven society that has been conditioned to think that they have to replace their vehicles every three years. Once over that three year mark these vehicles are considered to be on the slippery slope to the scrapper and the sooner the better as far as goverments and industry are concerned.

Older cars don't rust much any more so why not encourage owners to service them properly and if necessary require them to have them reconditioned. Chips or ECUs were produced in the first place so can be again. An alternative industry could flourish with the entirely green purpose of prolonging the life of an object which has already been produced and has therefore long since created it's own manufacturing carbon footprint. Why create even more pollution by first scrapping it and then making another even more resource hungry "environmentally friendly" EV that requires an entirely new world wide infrastructure to support it and it's like? Instead we have incentives like the moronic car scrappage scheme that gets trotted out from time to time. A scheme that has seen hundreds of thousands of cars scrapped at enormous cost to the tax payer. Why? Because it supports the drive to replace them with vehicles which are apparently so much more environmentally friendly!

As for my current car not lasting forever, well you are right, everything returns to the earth eventually. However, in the mean time I own six vehicles, they are 114, 111, 100, 19, 4 and 4 years old respectively and are all in full working order. The one that gets used the most is my late father's 19 year old Skoda Fabia 1.4 tdi diesel hatch. It has long since paid it's carbon dues, doesn't depreciate, costs very little to run, averages 60+ mpg and fulfills the same function as any other car EV or ICE on a daily basis. Parts are plentiful and ridiculously cheap and it runs like a dream. There is no reason why it can't continue to run for many years/decades to come and yet this is the very sort of vehicle that Governments want us to scrap and replace with new EVs. I sincerely believe that there is a place for EVs but IMO the drive to phase out ICE vehicles in order to replace them with an alternative EV fleet and infrastructure will prove both short sighted and extremely costly to the environment and our pockets.

As for taxing by the mile, yes I have to agree, that will eventually happen. However, if anyone is naïve enough to think that it will replace VED then they should think again. Instead, it will likely be reincarnated as a nominal annual registration fee. That fee will be minimal at first but will steadily climb year by year thus creating another healthy income stream for the exchequer.

There is definitely a valid argument for keeping a vehicle for as long as possible to minimise all the manufacturing and distribution carbon emissions. I can see a time coming soon where the traditional 3 or 4 year lease model of EV’s could move to as high as 8 years. It’s only the consumerism and snob value that prevents it at the moment I think. And it may be the only way to drive down leasing costs and total cost of ownership of EV’s to make it affordable for all.

On a visit to a Mercedes-Benz facility some years ago I was told that the vehicle with the lowest carbon footprint from cradle to grave was the Jeep Wrangler, because it can last so long.

You’re right about scrap yards and dismantlers, these are more than likely filled with total loss vehicles too because even insurers have got the consumerism bug and would rather write off than repair. As soon as the airbags are deployed on anything older than 3 or 4 years it’s often declared a total loss.

Having said that, I recently had an 11 year old truck off the road for 2 months because Mercedes no longer stocked a driveshaft and had to go back to the original manufacturing drawings to get one made as a one-off. Despite my requests to do so, the MB dealer wouldn’t try to find a used part from a breakers yard because they wouldn’t put their name behind the quality of it in the final repair. So there are drawbacks in long ownership but not insurmountable if prepared to take that short term pain for the long term gains.

 

[wildslammer22]

Unless you own a car without any microchips/ecu’s etc like my old Land Rover lol

Which is why most of them are still on the road decades later…

 

[Amarillo]

It's alright banging on about your sodding bike. Outside of London the transport network is pathetic. We don't get n alternative. I can't cycle 33 mile to Sheffield at 5am for my shift everyday or night and then another 33 mile back after my 12 hour stint can I. But here is labour Sheffield introducing the same bull sh1t without providing a viable alternative. Not everyone lives In f#cking London with cycle lanes made of daisies and tubes built from duck feathers. But we are getting the same so called clean air zones. Sorry for the language, boils my p1ss. I HAVE to drive to work

London’s ULEZ doesn’t extend as far north as Sheffield, so I think you are safe from the London ULEZ charge for the foreseeable future.

 

[Amarillo]

So you are saying those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure . I didn’t realise that there were so many people in London who were totally self sufficient such that they never used supermarkets, local shops or travelled on Public Transport , never had anything delivered by Amazon or Royal Mail using the road system and will never have need of the emergency services who also use the road system.

No, I didn’t say that those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure.

You have a rather nasty habit of saying things that haven’t been said, and then arguing against that which hasn’t been argued in the first place.

What I did say was that about 50% of London households (considerably more than 50% of Londoners) have no car. I said nothing about them not using the road infrastructure.

 

[wildslammer22]

London’s ULEZ doesn’t extend as far north as Sheffield, so I think you are safe from the London ULEZ charge for the foreseeable future.

What about levelling up ;-)

 

[Amarillo]

Sorry Tom, I am struggling to see your point.

There are always those who deny change will happen.

 

[wildslammer22]

No, I didn’t say that those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure.

You have a rather nasty habit of saying things that haven’t been said, and then arguing against that which hasn’t been argued in the first place.

What I did say was that about 50% of London households (considerably more than 50% of Londoners) have no car. I said nothing about them not using the road infrastructure.

So you are saying those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure . I didn’t realise that there were so many people in London who were totally self sufficient such that they never used supermarkets, local shops or travelled on Public Transport , never had anything delivered by Amazon or Royal Mail using the road system and will never have need of the emergency services who also use the road system.

So you are saying those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure . I didn’t realise that there were so many people in London who were totally self sufficient such that they never used supermarkets, local shops or travelled on Public Transport , never had anything delivered by Amazon or Royal Mail using the road system and will never have need of the emergency services who also use the road system.

Car ownership in London is low because there are viable alternatives, which makes the Capital more of an outlier rather than a repeatable model. There is too much focus on switching from ICE to EV vs reducing unnecessary car journeys. 17% of car journeys are under 1 mile, 67% under 5. Even climate change sceptics would struggle to argue that emissions driven air pollution combined with increasingly sedentary lifestyles are good for our health.

Roads are vital arteries in modern living, clogging these arteries with avoidable traffic the issue that doesn’t get nearly enough focus. Car ownership and use is much more than how to get from A to B, it’s also about lifestyle, status and independence, I doubt if many of us chose to buy VW Californias based solely on efficiency. Many car journeys are unavoidable many more are not, a truly equitable taxation regime would disproportionately penalise the avoidable car journeys. That would be fiendishly difficult to implement which is why most taxes related to road use are pretty blunt instruments.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Yes. Nothing he has predicted has been insane and most of it proved true in time.

I think that Net Zero is insane, and climate change believers are in a cult but do not realise it.

If that's the rabbit hole from which you're peering up at the world, I guess that's where we'll have to leave you then.

 

[Velma's Dad]

It's alright banging on about your sodding bike. Outside of London the transport network is pathetic. We don't get n alternative. I can't cycle 33 mile to Sheffield at 5am for my shift everyday or night and then another 33 mile back after my 12 hour stint can I. But here is labour Sheffield introducing the same bull sh1t without providing a viable alternative. Not everyone lives In f#cking London with cycle lanes made of daisies and tubes built from duck feathers. But we are getting the same so called clean air zones. Sorry for the language, boils my p1ss. I HAVE to drive to work

I understand you might be cross about clean air zones in principle, but it seems to me that has to be a decision in the end for the people who actually live in the cities in question (in this case Sheffield), who've elected a local authority that puts priority on their health and/or raising money to fund better public transport.

As you have a T6 (ie Euro 6) van, surely you personally can continue to commute in it to work in Sheffield with no extra costs or inconvenience? (Forgive me if I've misunderstood the setup.)

 

[Borris]

Having said that, I recently had an 11 year old truck off the road for 2 months because Mercedes no longer stocked a driveshaft and had to go back to the original manufacturing drawings to get one made as a one-off. Despite my requests to do so, the MB dealer wouldn’t try to find a used part from a breakers yard because they wouldn’t put their name behind the quality of it in the final repair. So there are drawbacks in long ownership but not insurmountable if prepared to take that short term pain for the long term gains.

If we were encouraged to keep our vehicles on the road longer then manufacturers would have to play their part and drop the whole built in obsolecence thing. Continuing to manufacture the necessary spare parts would likely be far greener than scrapping and replacing a basically sound car with a whole new one.

 

[WelshGas]

No, I didn’t say that those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure.

You have a rather nasty habit of saying things that haven’t been said, and then arguing against that which hasn’t been argued in the first place.

What I did say was that about 50% of London households (considerably more than 50% of Londoners) have no car. I said nothing about them not using the road infrastructure.

So that 50% should be contributing to the road infrastructure costs as they depend on it.

 

[WelshGas]

No, I didn’t say that those 50% of Londoners who do not own a car have no need of the road infrastructure.

You have a rather nasty habit of saying things that haven’t been said, and then arguing against that which hasn’t been argued in the first place.

What I did say was that about 50% of London households (considerably more than 50% of Londoners) have no car. I said nothing about them not using the road infrastructure.

" About 50% of London households have no car. Why should those 50% be subsidising those who drive on London’s roads and contribute little or nothing extra for London’s roads? "

 

[Borris]

There are always those who deny change will happen.

That's true, but how is that relevant to my post #7, which you quoted?

That post was my comment on the proposed "Introduction of Vehicle Excise Duty for zero emission cars, vans and motorcycles from 2025".

However, referring to your response, Yes change will happen, it always has. EVs have an important part to play but they aren't the panacea to all our current woes, which is the road we are all currently being funneled down.

 

[Amarillo]

So that 50% should be contributing to the road infrastructure costs as they depend on it.

Yes, and they do. My argument is that car owners in London should contribute more than non car owners in London.

I don’t think that is unreasonable.

 

[Amarillo]

" About 50% of London households have no car. Why should those 50% be subsidising those who drive on London’s roads and contribute little or nothing extra for London’s roads? "

Exactly that.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

I understand you might be cross about clean air zones in principle, but it seems to me that has to be a decision in the end for the people who actually live in the cities in question (in this case Sheffield), who've elected a local authority that puts priority on their health and/or raising money to fund better public transport.

As you have a T6 (ie Euro 6) van, surely you personally can continue to commute in it to work in Sheffield with no extra costs or inconvenience? (Forgive me if I've misunderstood the setup.)

Euro7 is looming.