Ultra Low Emission Zone ? extension of scheme October 2021

[stephent]

That?s why they?re exempt from the congestion charge.

The do emit pollution though and thus have to pay the ULEZ charge.

natty01295 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because they free up traffic therefore should be

> Exempt from ULEZ

>

> Sally Eva Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't understand the relevance of this.

> >

> > natty01295 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Motorcycles,Motor Scooters

> > > Don't get stuck in traffic like Cars do !!

[Penguin68]

Clearly improving air etc. quality is a good thing, but we should not consider that that has not already been happening. From a weekly magazine this week:- the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs has been keeping comparable statistics since 1970. Sulphur dioxide pollution in Britain has since declined by 97 per cent. That, perhaps, is not surprising, given that the main source of it was coal-burning ? something which largely disappeared after the Clean Air Acts. But progress on other forms of pollution has been pretty drastic, too. Nitrogen oxide pollution is down 72 per cent, non-methane volatile organic compounds down 66 per cent, PM10s (large diameter particles of soot and other matter) down 73 per cent and PM2.5s (small diameter particles) down 79 per cent.

London's air pollution has been at 'illegal levels' since 2010 because a new target was then introduced - not because it had worsened since the previous year.

Recently increased NO2 is a direct consequence of Labour (for perfectly good anti-CO2 reasons) encouraging the use of diesel without thinking through the unintended consequences. And the recent increase in PM2.5 pollution may be directly attributable to the increase in wood-burners, against consequent on government action (in this case Tory) to reduce CO2. However, and in general, air quality even in London has been improving - I am old enough to remember London pre The Clean Air Act of 1956 - and even many years after newly cleaned indoor window sills would be black with greasy dirt within days (before the 1956 Act it was that day!).

Which is not to deny that any engine which does not burn sufficiently clean should be discouraged, through pricing if not outright ban, from being used in cities. In particular, although motorbikes are more efficient than cars in some areas (for instance producing less CO2) they are far worse in others (you cannot fit Catalytic converters on most motorcycles save the very largest) and tests have shown them to be far more polluting comparatively in many areas

https://www2.greencarreports.com/news/1067907_motorcycles-are-more-polluting-than-cars-new-device-shows

If the ULEZ hits cars, it certainly should hit motorcycles too, for those not meeting the same standards as for cars.

[MarkT]

Do the ULEZ standards take account of the quantity of emissions per person on board?

At the same percentage, the actual amounts of any exhaust component will be greater for a larger engine.

Engine capacities of cars are perhaps 10 times the capacities of motorbikes. The average number of persons in a car is probably less than 2, not much more than a bike.

[Penguin68]

Do the ULEZ standards take account of the quantity of emissions per person on board?

I doubt it, and why should they? It is the absolute amount that is emitted, not the proportional amount per passenger, which is the driver here, surely? - my asthma is no less because the particles I breathed in came from a bus with 60 passengers, rather than a car with one.

At the same percentage, the actual amounts of any exhaust component will be greater for a larger engine.

It is not just the engine capacity, but whether the vehicle is fitted with exhaust cleaning technology (i.e. catalytic converter). Most bikes are too small (and the costs too high) for this to happen. So most bike engines (as regards the particulates that the CAT captures) are inherently 'dirtier' than car engines using the same fuel.

[natty01295]

Modern bikes are clean

Motorbikes/Motor Scooters

That are Pre-2007 EURO 3

Have to pay ULEZ Because the engines are not so clean and emit more

* There have been demonstrations to stop bikers getting charged

[Penguin68]

Modern bikes are clean

As are modern cars, by similar standards. The argument is about those vehicles (however many wheels they have) which don't meet the standards.

* There have been demonstrations to stop bikers getting charged

And if there were demonstrations to excuse anyone from legislation, does that make this right? Do we now rule and exercise the rule of law on the basis of demonstrations?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So I read somewhere that black cabs account for about 30% of the pollution in London. So why are they exempted? Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing imo. I also find it hard to believe that a person travelling by motorbike causes the same amount of pollution as one driving by car, but perhaps I'm wrong?

[bobbsy]

Think I commented once before - heard a radio discussion last year about the scheme, and a report that the Mayor's office had conducted. From memory passenger cars accounted for 2% of the emissions the scheme is targeting. Taxi's, buses, heavy vehicles were the majority. It's a solely money making scheme IMO.

[Penguin68]

I also find it hard to believe that a person travelling by motorbike causes the same amount of pollution as one driving by car, but perhaps I'm wrong?

Does anyone suggest they do? I'm sure an elderly diesel lorry puts out more pollution than a car, but that doesn't exempt the car (if it doesn't meet the criteria) from paying the charge. You could argue that the charge should be based on the time taken on the road - a car might drive in the zone for 20 minutes in a day, a motor cycle courier the whole working day - so then the courier should be paying more than the car?...

Things like this have to be simply administered. If your vehicle doesn't meet the standard set out, you pay. If it does, you don't.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Things like this have to be simply administered.

> If your vehicle doesn't meet the standard set out,

> you pay. If it does, you don't.

Isn't that the point though. A motorbike is (probably) less polluting than a 10 year old petrol car, but the latter is exempted, the former not? I might have this wrong, but that seems to be what was suggested above. Certainly black cabs are exempted, so it all seems a bit random tbh.

[JohnL]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So I read somewhere that black cabs account for

> about 30% of the pollution in London. So why are

> they exempted? Makes a bit of a mockery of the

> whole thing imo. I also find it hard to believe

> that a person travelling by motorbike causes the

> same amount of pollution as one driving by car,

> but perhaps I'm wrong?

Maybe Sadiq knows that he's behind with the plan to switch them all to electric

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2017/2854

https://www.electrive.com/2019/02/17/london-mayor-announced-black-cab-ev-investment/

[natty01295]

Money grabbing goverment Scam

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/106655/the-ulez-is-nothing-more-than-a-cynical-money-grabbing-scam