London pollution & ULEZ

Jimbeam3678 said:
Why do you find that funny? The money to fix them has to come from somewhere.. No prizes for guessing where from.
Click to expand...

Yep, just makes the whole thing look like a farce.

Add in people simply covering up their plates and the huge increase in plate cloning due to the ULEZ.

If I was driving my non-compliant car in I'd be tempted to use the "leaf trick" too. The chances of being stopped are microscopic. Especially in the new, outer more rural/suburban areas of it.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Oh dear :D

www.bbc.co.uk

Ulez: More than 300 cameras damaged or stolen in four months

Unofficial data mapping the damage to cameras suggests almost 500 have been vandalised or stolen.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
great so it's ok now to vandalise stuff we don't agree with?
that is exactly the logic use by those twits (other vowels optional) who drilled holes through all those new Jags tyres the other week.

I hope the people who did this were caught on CCTV and done for it.... not that they will actually get punished enough to cover the cost of replacing them.

edit. only 1 person charged.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
great so it's ok now to vandalise stuff we don't agree with?
that is exactly the logic use by those twits (other vowels optional) who drilled holes through all those new Jags tyres the other week.

I hope the people who did this were caught on CCTV and done for it.... not that they will actually get punished enough to cover the cost of replacing them.

edit. only 1 person charged.
Click to expand...

This is the people not wanting Khan's nonsense TBH. This is like the French way of showing their dissaproval.

That many being done in isn't just a few people. That is effort from a lot of people. He didn't listen at all during consultations, so now the locals are smashing his toys up.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
great so it's ok now to vandalise stuff we don't agree with?
that is exactly the logic use by those twits (other vowels optional) who drilled holes through all those new Jags tyres the other week.
Click to expand...

like the planned Paris and Lyon options, discretely increasing ULEZ charges on larger more polluting SUV vehicles, should be a no-brainer;
Khan has the reg plate and vehicle type
I wasn't aware of the Tyre Extuiguisher SUV vigilantes/vandals - but there is an underlying point.
 
the thing is vandalism is either acceptable or not. you can't just defend one because it happens to align with your beliefs but chastise another because it is against your views......
I take the view that vandalism is bad even if you disagree with the government ...
otherwise you have people who don't agree with clean air policies damaging cameras
people who disagree with SUVs damaging cars
people who disagree with CCTV damaging those cameras.
people who disagree with some speed limits damaging safety cameras.

where does it end? if I disagree with planning permission for an extension do I get to go and knock it down with a sledge hammer?
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
the thing is vandalism is either acceptable or not. you can't just defend one because it happens to align with your beliefs but chastise another because it is against your views......
I take the view that vandalism is bad even if you disagree with the government ...
otherwise you have people who don't agree with clean air policies damaging cameras
people who disagree with SUVs damaging cars
people who disagree with CCTV damaging those cameras.
people who disagree with some speed limits damaging safety cameras.

where does it end? if I disagree with planning permission for an extension do I get to go and knock it down with a sledge hammer?
Click to expand...

Not really any different to people tearing down statues of tyrants. This isn't hurting Joe public, it's hitting the pockets of TFL and contractors.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Not really any different to people tearing down statues of tyrants. This isn't hurting Joe public, it's hitting the pockets of TFL and contractors.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that as well.... . not defending the people the statues were representing but the way to approach that is to democratically complain...... and if you don't get your way then that does not make it ok to smash them up.
most of our historical figures , especially from a certain period of time did what today would be considered unacceptable things. they are still part of our history. If people think their bad outweighs their good then they should legally protest.

as for not hurting Joe public (back to the ULEZ cameras) ... unless they are funded by a magic money tree I am unaware of they ARE hurting Joe public by causing more of the limited budget be spent on it.
 
You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day people have the right to protest - and if they choose to risk prosecution by cutting down cameras that’s their call.

Unrelated, currently bidding on a freshly cut down ULEZ camera on eBay :p
 
mattyprice4004 said:
You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day people have the right to protest - and if they choose to risk prosecution by cutting down cameras that’s their call.

Unrelated, currently bidding on a freshly cut down ULEZ camera on eBay :p
Click to expand...
they have a right to protest, I agree.

they don't have a right to cause criminal damage, it's a scummy thing to do.

it dissapoints me the amount of people who think it's ok...... and like I said it's irrelevant to the argument of if you agree with ULEZ or not .
 
bigmike20vt said:
I disagree with that as well.... . not defending the people the statues were representing but the way to approach that is to democratically complain...... and if you don't get your way then that does not make it ok to smash them up.
most of our historical figures , especially from a certain period of time did what today would be considered unacceptable things. they are still part of our history. If people think their bad outweighs their good then they should legally protest.

as for not hurting Joe public (back to the ULEZ cameras) ... unless they are funded by a magic money tree I am unaware of they ARE hurting Joe public by causing more of the limited budget be spent on it.
Click to expand...

The public resorting to smashing them up means democracy failed. The politicians ignored the public. Nothing was ever won by sitting back and taking it, that's how dictatorships creep in.

The same is happening with the "online safety bill" which needs some serious smashing up.

These are oppressive measures or yet another disguised tax. The London mayor is obviously expanding the ULEZ to try and fill a financial hole he created. Hopefully replacing camera systems wipes that out.
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
doesn’t poling suggest most people are in favour of the ULEZ?

Oh yes it does, but somehow democracy has failed….
Click to expand...

And did they ask everyone, or just people within London itself. Mostly owning no car themselves...

What about people who live just inside or outside of the boundary?

It's easy to spin these polls/stats.
 
Last edited:
Just minutes ago I received an email from my local timber company to say they are reducing the threshold for free delivery in the ULEZ zone. On the face of it that sounds great. Now more stuff qualifies for free delivery. But I'm guessing it's them worrying that their business will reduce in those areas as a lot of tradesmen will be driving older diesels.
 
Nasher said:
And did they ask everyone, or just people within London itself. Mostly owning no car themselves...

What about people who live just inside or outside of the boundary?

It's easy to spin these polls/stats.
Click to expand...

A poll is not a referendum. The referendum was when Londoners elected their mayor, a mayor who is committed to ULEZ and made that very clear at the time.

It doesn’t matter if the person owns a car or not. Why is your right to drive a car more important than someone else’s right not to breathe in the fumes it puts out? Just to be clear, it isn’t.

Just because you don’t like over peoples opinions because they don’t align with your view, it does not make them invalid.
 
Nasher said:
The public resorting to smashing them up means democracy failed. The politicians ignored the public. Nothing was ever won by sitting back and taking it, that's how dictatorships creep in.

The same is happening with the "online safety bill" which needs some serious smashing up.

These are oppressive measures or yet another disguised tax. The London mayor is obviously expanding the ULEZ to try and fill a financial hole he created. Hopefully replacing camera systems wipes that out.
Click to expand...

He was told to do it by the government. In France you dont get to pay 12.50 for a non complient vehicle. Its 170 odd euro fine.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
A poll is not a referendum. The referendum was when Londoners elected their mayor, a mayor who is committed to ULEZ and made that very clear at the time.
Click to expand...

fullfact.org

Government funding agreement did not force Sadiq Khan to extend ULEZ to cover all of Greater London - Full Fact

A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.
fullfact.org fullfact.org

Neither the funding agreement nor Mr Khan’s election manifesto specifically referred to expanding ULEZ to cover all of Greater London, though he did state in his manifesto that: “Beyond the expansion of ULEZ, I’ll monitor all existing road-charging schemes to ensure they continue to bring the maximum benefits of improved air quality and reduced congestion, and I’ll identify where further action is needed to eradicate hotspots for air pollution.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom