Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This could be old news for those people with vehicles that don't meet ULEZ standards, but I hadn't realised this until last week. FYI: when you are caught by a ULEZ camera, the TFL website publishes the date/time of the occurrence and the location of the camera plus a photo. With that, you can obviously map your routes accordingly. Eg. I hadn't realised there was a camera on Lyndhurst/Holly as micromacromonkey mentions above until I saw the TFL photo.
To be fair mask compliance on public transport does seem to have improved of late. I gave up my non-compliant car and have managed so far on bike and public transport. Plan to use zip car and van if need be. I wonder how much of peoples reluctance to give up the car is practical and how much just emotional resistance, it was a wrench but is it manageable.

Why put in an FoI request when the figure has been published in the newspapers already? It's in the link on the thread above.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html

  • 1 month later...

It appears that the mayor now wants to extend his cash grab out across the whole of London.


IMHO he can't generate enough revenue from the existing scheme so casting his net wider.


It's not really about pollution as we're all moving to electric vehicles aren't we.


BBC News - ULEZ: Mayor announces proposals for London-wide pollution charge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60608717

It's sad that you would take that view.


I think it's a solid step forward in reducing the deadly, life-limiting pollution we are all breathing - albeit, I am sure, in unequal measure.


The Green Party agree

Lib Dems agree

Rosamund Kissi-Debrah agrees

Asthma + Lung UK agree

Even the RAC have issued a statement supporting the move

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Is it sad or cynical of his motivations

>

> After all in a few years we're all supposed to be

> driving electric or hydrogen vehicles so it's a

> short term expensive tool that when petrol/ diesel

> is no longer used will need to look at another way

> to raise revenue


Petrol and diesel cars are going to be sold for another 8 years - if the government doesn't let the timetable slip. The idea that we are shortly going to be in a place where London is running on electric cars only is nuts - and even electric cars cause congestion and noise. They're not a magic bullet.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-historic-step-towards-net-zero-with-end-of-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

It won't be down to the government in the end, it will just be a commercial reality that you won't be able to buy an internal combustion engine any more and shortly afterwards you won't be able to buy fuel for one.


Sorry that your "anti-pollution" campaign to stop people richer than you from owning cars has failed.

lameduck Wrote:

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

> with khan its all about the money


I don't think that's true - he developed adult-onset asthma in 2014 (two years before becoming Mayor) - that's why he's made it a key battle. It's personal.


These measures are (democratically) popular - there are plenty of us with young kids with asthma/chronic lung disease/wheezing who walk our kids to school, and want to do so without them having to breathe in the fumes of petrol and diesel cars. We didn't create this pollution, why should we have to breathe it in?


We have had illegal levels of air pollution on our road (Lordship Lane) the whole eight years we've been living here - surely our right to health is more important than others' right to pollute?


> since ulez has put me on foot, my husband had a

> car push him over.

> and I have had several near misses by push bikes

> with no lights

> whizzing in front and behind me


Very sorry to hear this - we absolutely need to make walking much safer, and crack down on dangerous drivers and riders.

  • 2 weeks later...
Lameduck - I am with you on the lack of safety from at least some (a sizeable minority) of cyclists. So many - even the "nice" ones with baskets and dangling children, with pink vests - go through reds and many others (especially the delivery cyclists) scoff at front and back lights. The more of us who are cycling, the more of us will be at risk of these bad apples, so it is reasonable to ask for best practice to be adopted alongside the measures being put in place to expand the number of non motor-using road users.
This thread is about the ULEZ. Why use it to have a go at cyclists. Why are you so angry about cyclists? Don't answer that one here. I am not bothered about the outer boroughs and won't be shedding a tear if they get the ULEZ. If they were less carcentric, introduced 20mph, improved cycle infrastructure I may feel differently

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
    • Unless you're 5 years old or have been living in a cave for several decades you can't be for real. I don't believe that you're genuinely confused by this, no one who has access to newspapers, the tv news, the internet would ask this. Either you're an infant, or have recently woken up from a coma after decades, or you're a supercilious tw*t
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...