ULEZ is without doubt really important but istm that as with so many things the cost of its implementation negatively impacts those with the least resources far more than other people. One of Little Beaky's longest standing carers is going to have to pay the tariff every time she comes to work as she just doesn't have the money to purchase another vehicle which would meet requirements and public transport is not possible due to locations of both work and home.
LEZs don't negatively impact those with the least resources, the 20% of households who can't afford a car at all can only benefit - assuming, of course, that the income from fees to drive in LEZ are passed on as improvements to public and active transport.
It's the middle who are more likely to be negatively impacted, those who can (just) afford a car - and, very likely the car they can afford doesn't meet the LEZ requirements. Which is why LEZs need to be accompanied with significant additional provision for public and active transport so that daily journeys can be taken leaving the car parked at home.
The biggest problem with getting an ev, other than cost, is lack of charging facilities and range given how long it takes to charge them. We won’t get a large scale shift until that is sorted. And then what you need is a large scale subsidised program to convert rather than scrap existing vehicles.
And better, cheaper, (much better, much cheaper) public transport - especially in rural areas.
Good point being made on Twitter that Labour are very incompetent in not publicizing the Tory origins of ULEZ and extension. Why are they so useless?
It is difficult to campaign by saying, we’re in favour of this it’s a great idea, but by the way the idea came from our opponent’s party. That is sort of the worst of both words.
Maybe, but Starmer seems to be saying that Labour are stupid to push ULEZ, when it was a deal forced on Khan by Shapps.
But if the public perceives ULEZ as a typically "Labour" policy(which is how interventionist pro-eco policies generally ARE perceived), then the nuance of "Well, actually, it was the Tories in Westminster, doing something uncharacteristically progressive, who forced this on a left-wing mayor" would likely be lost on most people.
LEZs don't negatively impact those with the least resources, the 20% of households who can't afford a car at all can only benefit - assuming, of course, that the income from fees to drive in LEZ are passed on as improvements to public and active transport.
It's the middle who are more likely to be negatively impacted, those who can (just) afford a car - and, very likely the car they can afford doesn't meet the LEZ requirements. Which is why LEZs need to be accompanied with significant additional provision for public and active transport so that daily journeys can be taken leaving the car parked at home.
Thanks for this- I'd be in that "middle" group too if I lived in London. We have a very old car which we only use when walking, cycling or public transport aren't a viable option. When we eventually move into something all on one level we'll hopefully have enough money to get an electric vehicle if we still need one.
We live in central London, and ULEZ has been here for years. Anyway, we got a hybrid, but I agree that it's a tough policy for some, esp with a small scrappage scheme, (money paid for old cars). But I remember last year, a little girl who died of lung disease in London.
The biggest problem with getting an ev, other than cost, is lack of charging facilities and range given how long it takes to charge them. We won’t get a large scale shift until that is sorted. And then what you need is a large scale subsidised program to convert rather than scrap existing vehicles.
And better, cheaper, (much better, much cheaper) public transport - especially in rural areas.
Waking on your own to school is not encouraged in many parts of London. Crowded streets where it is easy to get taken etc. as a group fine. There are no school buses really. The kids of my friend of school age are too young to take the bus on their own. Because of where you live (sometimes how high you live in a tower) you may not be in the catchment of the nearest school.
Yes I walked to school with my sister in the suburbs of a city.
Sorry but kids aren't getting snatched from the streets of Uxbridge, it just doesn't happen. It doesn't change the fact that a child in junior school should be able to catch a bus by themselves - I don't mean specific school buses, normal buses. If there's one thing London is rich in compared to the rest of the country it's buses. Are you saying no 12yo in Uxbridge gets the bus into town on a Saturday to meet their friends? I find that hard to believe.
Edited to add that when I got the bus to school in the early 00s I just got a normal local bus that went past my school, it wasn't a school bus. Locally it's common to have schoolkids use local buses that aren't school specific buses, and I would have thought where I live is pretty similar in terms of demographics to Uxbridge. And buses are much cheaper and easier to use in London!
(For context, Hugal and I are married and we're talking about the same family here.)
Our friends have an adult son with special needs living at home, who will never be fully independent. Also 2 teenagers, one of whom also has special needs. And also (second marriage) two very young children, one of whom is in primary school and the other nursery. Hence they have a second hand MPV, which is 6 months too old to be compliant. They have been trying for years to get an MPV which will be compliant but prices have rocketed even for second-hand ones, far above their budget. Public transport is possible for some of their children but not all. And having taken public transport to their house many times (as we don't drive), it's not necessarily easy to get there.
I don't disagree with fixing the pollution problem, but by rolling this out so quickly it's ended up being a tax on the poor. If there were grants to obtain compliant vehicles for those who couldn't afford to buy them, it would help.
Believe me, now that I live in a public transport desert I sometimes fantasise about London buses... but they aren't a universal solution.
The biggest problem with getting an ev, other than cost, is lack of charging facilities and range given how long it takes to charge them. We won’t get a large scale shift until that is sorted. And then what you need is a large scale subsidised program to convert rather than scrap existing vehicles.
And better, cheaper, (much better, much cheaper) public transport - especially in rural areas.
Convert vehicles in what way?
Take the engine out and put in a battery ? Or something along those lines.
As in then an electrically powered (hopefully by green energy) machine winds up the car.
If you are storing energy mechanically, you are better off using a flywheel than any form of clockwork because of the maximum energy storable and the energy losses due to friction.
Generally mechanical ways of storing energy have energy densities that are proportional in some way to the strength of the material, and to approach some of the theoretical maximums you need parts machined to high levels of precision and/or purity.
The other issue is that the weight of things like the enclosure and containment system end up driving the energy density back down, to the point where battery technology is still better.
That was tried in my part of the world and didn't go well. When the public was asked to vote, the consensus was overwhelmingly to ban the things, following numerous accidents.
@Gill H does the adult son not have a Freedom Pass? Presumably one of his parents could get a carer's bus pass, or a carer could if he has one. Disabled people rely very heavily on public transport even if they need someone to accompany them. And I know that getting PIP is a nightmare but that's exactly the kind of extra expense PIP is designed for. For disabled children attending school, is there not school transport provided? I was under the impression that this was something councils had to provide for special schools for instance.
Can they not get a Blue Badge? I would have thought Blue Badges would exempt you from charges or result in lower charges.
Don’t really want to go into details but the situations are all a lot more complicated than at first glance. The last 20-odd years have been a constant fight for very little help. The special needs are mostly not physical, so a blue badge wouldn’t be appropriate.
That was tried in my part of the world and didn't go well. When the public was asked to vote, the consensus was overwhelmingly to ban the things, following numerous accidents.
Funny how that doesn't happen with cars isn't it? Despite numerous accidents.
Loads of e-scooters in Cambridge, both the hired ones legally and private ones (especially on the main cycleway to town where there is no police presence). My husband hires one occasionally if he has a bike puncture in the morning and he thinks they are great. But Cambridge is a really bike friendly town so e-scooters are very much accepted here. They actually look like the future here, they are so numerous.
The problem with e-scooters is they haven’t yet developed an etiquette / standard safe use practices because they are new.
Riders don’t necessarily wear high viz, they don’t signal, they are not consistent about how (and whether) they position themselves on the road or pavement - and their awareness of other road users and pedestrians is highly variable.
I would hope this gets better if they become more common.
The problem with e-scooters is that (at the moment) they are almost all ridden by idiots who imagine that pedestrians are fitted with radar and that the stopping distance for a car driven at 20 mph is 0 centimetres. Sadly, I do not see this changing any time soon. They are worse than pavement cyclists, and that's saying something,
That was tried in my part of the world and didn't go well. When the public was asked to vote, the consensus was overwhelmingly to ban the things, following numerous accidents.
Funny how that doesn't happen with cars isn't it? Despite numerous accidents.
I think it’s mostly down to infrastructure. As above they tend to work better in places with good infrastructure for cycling and other types of personal transportation.
They’d be a nightmare in most of London but they seemed to work fine in Berlin for just this reason.
That was tried in my part of the world and didn't go well. When the public was asked to vote, the consensus was overwhelmingly to ban the things, following numerous accidents.
Funny how that doesn't happen with cars isn't it? Despite numerous accidents.
I think it’s mostly down to infrastructure. As above they tend to work better in places with good infrastructure for cycling and other types of personal transportation.
They’d be a nightmare in most of London but they seemed to work fine in Berlin for just this reason.
A decent cycling infrastructure which is segregated from pedestrians (or wide enough that conflict is avoidable) and also from motor vehicles is something of a prerequisite for cycling, eScooters or anything else. Only a bold minority of people are willing to ride a bike on busy city roads.
A decent cycling infrastructure which is segregated from pedestrians (or wide enough that conflict is avoidable) and also from motor vehicles is something of a prerequisite for cycling, eScooters or anything else. Only a bold minority of people are willing to ride a bike on busy city roads.
Completely agreed, I think much of the animosity vs scooters is introducing them in the absence of the above, so you either force them to ride on roads - with all the issues cyclists face, or they head into pavements where they are dangerous to pedestrians.
Paris has quite a lot of cycle tracks, but that didn't stop the antisocial from riding the scooters on the pavement, riding two on a scooter and such. There's a reason why people voted to outlaw them.
(FWIW, 50% of Parisians intra muros don't own a car.)
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
Paris has quite a lot of cycle tracks, but that didn't stop the antisocial from riding the scooters on the pavement, riding two on a scooter and such. There's a reason why people voted to outlaw them.
(FWIW, 50% of Parisians intra muros don't own a car.)
But that's the funny thing - antisocial motorists park illegally, endanger other road users, kill and injure people, sit idling pumping fumes into the air, fit loud exhausts disturbing the peace, speed and from time to time collide with buildings.
And yet no-one talks about wanting to outlaw them.
Don’t really want to go into details but the situations are all a lot more complicated than at first glance. The last 20-odd years have been a constant fight for very little help. The special needs are mostly not physical, so a blue badge wouldn’t be appropriate.
Obviously not commenting on specifics here, but it's important to note that disabilities don't need to be physical for someone to have a Blue Badge. Many people caring for relatives with intellectual disabilities have one - the mobility aspect of PIP applies equally to someone's ability to travel unaccompanied as it does to someone's physical ability to walk. For eg lots of spouses of people with dementia have a Blue Badge for precisely this reason. It sounds to me like a Blue Badge would be extremely appropriate in this case and many families with intellectually disabled adult children have one.
Obviously some disabled people will need to use cars, that's why exemptions should exist. I don't think anyone in favour of ULEZ would disagree.
Paris has quite a lot of cycle tracks, but that didn't stop the antisocial from riding the scooters on the pavement, riding two on a scooter and such. There's a reason why people voted to outlaw them.
(FWIW, 50% of Parisians intra muros don't own a car.)
And in the UK lots of people ride them dangerously in fully pedestrianised areas in city centres, so a cycle lane would presumably not prevent that. And it's not all teenagers either - for some reason in Southampton there's always an abundance of middle-aged men riding them at speed through the pedestrianised areas.
I wonder if cultural attitudes play into this? I find Brits tend to want *other* people to obey the rules - call for speed cameras in their village but fly through other people's at 50mph; park on the pavement while complaining about cyclists using it.
So naturally those using the e-scooters will flout the rules while those who don't call for their banning. Restrictions on driving are unpopular because most adults drive.
How much of this is a British thing, and how much a people thing? Apparently these work well in Berlin but not Paris - are cultural attitudes towards rules different there?
Do the Tories not care that a child died recently in London because of traffic fumes? Do they not care that cases of childhood asthma are increasing?
Why does Labour not mention it? They have handed the narrative to the Tories.
The bottom line is that they lost by 500 votes in a seat that was previously thought to be safe enough for the prime minister.
There are many ways of making up for the 500 votes - perhaps if Starmer’s personal rating wasn’t so bad, or if they hadn’t spent the last week telling their supporters that there was no hope.
Turning it into a referendum on ULEZ is a choice and incidentally also undermines Starmers claims to be keen on further devolution of power.
Our car is '09 registration, petrol, and complies. Either there are still many old bangers still on the road in Uxbridge, or the problem is with diesel vehicles used bynaerisans and other small traders. There are many people in the area who can just about afford to keep their wheelson the road, but not to tchange them.
If the argument is that ULEZ penalises those who live in the zone (and, thus, pay the daily fee every day that they use a non-exempt car) then that argument applies to the current ULEZ introduced by Johnson as much as the expansion later this year. Because the current ULEZ includes a lot of residential areas. Costs to residents within a ULEZ are a valid argument against ULEZs, but not a valid argument against introducing or expanding a ULEZ.
It's a matter of density, surely? The suburbs within the Circular roads had higher pollution and congestion and better public transport. I used to cycle from Dulwich to Cricklewood and back every workday regardless. And there's summat not right there. If ULEZ resident cost is an argument against, that is an argument against introduction or expansion.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
Your good sense is another's persecution. Making life harder for the 75%, marginally for the sake of the 20%, all beyond the N. & S. Circulars, is political insanity. Getting to work is a huge stressor. If the masses can't walk or cycle to work or school (and why not?), it needs to be as easy as possible first by (highly subsidized, automated) public (and publicly owned) then private transport. And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
How much of this is a British thing, and how much a people thing? Apparently these work well in Berlin but not Paris - are cultural attitudes towards rules different there?
Well, it works well in Cambridge too, we’ve had hired e-scooters for several years and purpose built cycling routes, so it is not necessarily a British thing. I suspect we do have the highest cycling participation in the UK though, parents were using fancy child carrying bikes and trailers 20 years ago here.
Rolling back on green issues certainly seems sensible, after a by-election result, (sarcasm). A point made by many, that the govt appeared to be campaigning against their own policies.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Do the Tories not care that a child died recently in London because of traffic fumes? Do they not care that cases of childhood asthma are increasing?
Why does Labour not mention it? They have handed the narrative to the Tories.
Yes, I've read quite a lot of articles on ULEZ that go on about public transport, children going to school, etc., without mentioning the health reasons. Those children are suffering from air pollution. I don't expect Starmer to talk about this, and the Tories seem be about to campaign against their own policies.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
Mind you, there are people on twitter saying that it's cool and showery in Manchester, so climate change is a hoax. This is so dim, I think it's a hoax.
No, no - we are told that everyone affected by protests is already aware of the climate crisis, so how can it possibly be a hoax?
Being aware doesn't mean, of course, that they're prepared to do anything concrete about it. Mr Sunak really doesn't want to give up his private jet or helicopter flights whilst he's delivering whatever-it-is to the British people...
Comments
It's the middle who are more likely to be negatively impacted, those who can (just) afford a car - and, very likely the car they can afford doesn't meet the LEZ requirements. Which is why LEZs need to be accompanied with significant additional provision for public and active transport so that daily journeys can be taken leaving the car parked at home.
And better, cheaper, (much better, much cheaper) public transport - especially in rural areas.
But if the public perceives ULEZ as a typically "Labour" policy(which is how interventionist pro-eco policies generally ARE perceived), then the nuance of "Well, actually, it was the Tories in Westminster, doing something uncharacteristically progressive, who forced this on a left-wing mayor" would likely be lost on most people.
Thanks for this- I'd be in that "middle" group too if I lived in London. We have a very old car which we only use when walking, cycling or public transport aren't a viable option. When we eventually move into something all on one level we'll hopefully have enough money to get an electric vehicle if we still need one.
Convert vehicles in what way?
(For context, Hugal and I are married and we're talking about the same family here.)
Our friends have an adult son with special needs living at home, who will never be fully independent. Also 2 teenagers, one of whom also has special needs. And also (second marriage) two very young children, one of whom is in primary school and the other nursery. Hence they have a second hand MPV, which is 6 months too old to be compliant. They have been trying for years to get an MPV which will be compliant but prices have rocketed even for second-hand ones, far above their budget. Public transport is possible for some of their children but not all. And having taken public transport to their house many times (as we don't drive), it's not necessarily easy to get there.
I don't disagree with fixing the pollution problem, but by rolling this out so quickly it's ended up being a tax on the poor. If there were grants to obtain compliant vehicles for those who couldn't afford to buy them, it would help.
Believe me, now that I live in a public transport desert I sometimes fantasise about London buses... but they aren't a universal solution.
Take the engine out and put in a battery ? Or something along those lines.
As in then an electrically powered (hopefully by green energy) machine winds up the car.
If you are storing energy mechanically, you are better off using a flywheel than any form of clockwork because of the maximum energy storable and the energy losses due to friction.
Generally mechanical ways of storing energy have energy densities that are proportional in some way to the strength of the material, and to approach some of the theoretical maximums you need parts machined to high levels of precision and/or purity.
The other issue is that the weight of things like the enclosure and containment system end up driving the energy density back down, to the point where battery technology is still better.
Can they not get a Blue Badge? I would have thought Blue Badges would exempt you from charges or result in lower charges.
Funny how that doesn't happen with cars isn't it? Despite numerous accidents.
Riders don’t necessarily wear high viz, they don’t signal, they are not consistent about how (and whether) they position themselves on the road or pavement - and their awareness of other road users and pedestrians is highly variable.
I would hope this gets better if they become more common.
I think it’s mostly down to infrastructure. As above they tend to work better in places with good infrastructure for cycling and other types of personal transportation.
They’d be a nightmare in most of London but they seemed to work fine in Berlin for just this reason.
A decent cycling infrastructure which is segregated from pedestrians (or wide enough that conflict is avoidable) and also from motor vehicles is something of a prerequisite for cycling, eScooters or anything else. Only a bold minority of people are willing to ride a bike on busy city roads.
Completely agreed, I think much of the animosity vs scooters is introducing them in the absence of the above, so you either force them to ride on roads - with all the issues cyclists face, or they head into pavements where they are dangerous to pedestrians.
(FWIW, 50% of Parisians intra muros don't own a car.)
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
But that's the funny thing - antisocial motorists park illegally, endanger other road users, kill and injure people, sit idling pumping fumes into the air, fit loud exhausts disturbing the peace, speed and from time to time collide with buildings.
And yet no-one talks about wanting to outlaw them.
Obviously not commenting on specifics here, but it's important to note that disabilities don't need to be physical for someone to have a Blue Badge. Many people caring for relatives with intellectual disabilities have one - the mobility aspect of PIP applies equally to someone's ability to travel unaccompanied as it does to someone's physical ability to walk. For eg lots of spouses of people with dementia have a Blue Badge for precisely this reason. It sounds to me like a Blue Badge would be extremely appropriate in this case and many families with intellectually disabled adult children have one.
Obviously some disabled people will need to use cars, that's why exemptions should exist. I don't think anyone in favour of ULEZ would disagree.
And in the UK lots of people ride them dangerously in fully pedestrianised areas in city centres, so a cycle lane would presumably not prevent that. And it's not all teenagers either - for some reason in Southampton there's always an abundance of middle-aged men riding them at speed through the pedestrianised areas.
So naturally those using the e-scooters will flout the rules while those who don't call for their banning. Restrictions on driving are unpopular because most adults drive.
How much of this is a British thing, and how much a people thing? Apparently these work well in Berlin but not Paris - are cultural attitudes towards rules different there?
Why does Labour not mention it? They have handed the narrative to the Tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/23/labour-stumble-uxbridge-shows-keir-starmer-how-to-put-party-on-firmer-footing
FWIW, I think that Labour are right to be cautious, but wrong to be too cautious.
There are many ways of making up for the 500 votes - perhaps if Starmer’s personal rating wasn’t so bad, or if they hadn’t spent the last week telling their supporters that there was no hope.
Turning it into a referendum on ULEZ is a choice and incidentally also undermines Starmers claims to be keen on further devolution of power.
It's a matter of density, surely? The suburbs within the Circular roads had higher pollution and congestion and better public transport. I used to cycle from Dulwich to Cricklewood and back every workday regardless. And there's summat not right there. If ULEZ resident cost is an argument against, that is an argument against introduction or expansion.
Your good sense is another's persecution. Making life harder for the 75%, marginally for the sake of the 20%, all beyond the N. & S. Circulars, is political insanity. Getting to work is a huge stressor. If the masses can't walk or cycle to work or school (and why not?), it needs to be as easy as possible first by (highly subsidized, automated) public (and publicly owned) then private transport. And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Oh, and tax wealth.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Yes, I've read quite a lot of articles on ULEZ that go on about public transport, children going to school, etc., without mentioning the health reasons. Those children are suffering from air pollution. I don't expect Starmer to talk about this, and the Tories seem be about to campaign against their own policies.
I guess they are desperate, and will drop any policy, if it might produce a shift in the polls. Net zero - forget it.
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
Precisely.
The first part appears to be true. That doesn't mean the second part is.
Is there a reliable (i.e. non-Twitter) source?
Being aware doesn't mean, of course, that they're prepared to do anything concrete about it. Mr Sunak really doesn't want to give up his private jet or helicopter flights whilst he's delivering whatever-it-is to the British people...