If you drive a combustion vehicle in London, you could now receive a fine of £130 for driving on certain roads in the centre of London.
A new charge introduced yesterday in the centre of London means that any combustion engine, excluding hybrids, could face a £130 fine for driving in certain streets in London in peak times. This fine replaces the T-Charge to stop people altogether from driving in the streets, in an aim to reduce pollution and help improve air quality, in the already tightly packed centre of London.
A ‘pioneering’ scheme
The scheme has been hailed as a pioneering by Hackney and Islington Council, who are the first two to introduce the scheme. Councillor Claudia Webbe, of Islington Council, said: “We are proud to be leading from the front with Hackney in this pioneering scheme – the first of its kind in the UK.”
The aptly called “ultra-low emissions streets” are the first of their kind across the UK and with many more expected to grow as the government introduces methods to reduce emissions in city centres.
In this particular scenario, the restrictions only apply 7 am – 10 am and 4 pm – 7 pm, Monday to Friday in certain areas but it is expected to increase as time goes on. The scheme will be policed through Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) software, that detects the numberplates automatically and determines whether they are combustion or not through the vehicle database.
Historical issues
Complying with emissions standards has been a problem for many years with the UK government receiving a final warning from the European Commission in January this year. The warning gave them a period of time to implement a successful strategy before they are taken to the European Court of Justice and potentially imposed with large fines.
The UK has had dangerously high levels of nitrous oxide since 2011, leading to approximately 40,000 – 50,000 premature deaths a year. The shocking statistic shows why the European Commission is showing such an interest in bringing the UK to task, and while the UK is not alone in this, we are one in five of those under investigation. Alongside France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Romania, we have been tasked with providing a suitable solution to the problem.
Two-tier motoring
Amanda Stretton, motoring editor at Confused.com, described the scheme as the introduction to what is becoming a ‘two-tier system of motoring,” splitting up those who can afford it, and those who can’t but need to drive around. If this becomes the case in cities and towns across the country, then motoring will take a massive U-turn and become something only the super-rich in society can afford, much like the early motoring times.
She also commented on the replacement of an electric or hybrid car and told the BBC: “Our own study has shown that many people would like to own an electric vehicle but are put off by the cost but also the lack of charging infrastructure.”
Motoring has become a pricier business recently, with the highest petrol prices in four years and people are having to choose between feeding their families and driving to work due to the high price of petrol.
How will it work?
Currently, nine streets are affected by the restrictions and are Blackall Street, Cowper Street, Paul Street, Tabernacle Street, Ravey Street, Singer Street, Willow Street, Charlotte Road and Rivington Street.
While this may seem like a small proportion of places, if this scheme works, and reduces congestion and pollution, then it likely becomes a template for other streets across the country especially in places of high pollution.
At the moment, any combustion vehicle entering the area, aside from residents and local businesses, will receive an instant £130 fine. This will be policed through ANPR cameras and while it is unknown about the contestation of the fine, it is thought that it will be fairly strict. The main aim is to reduce pollution at peak times, like the school run and commuter times, not only to encourage people to cycle or walk but to stop those who do cycle or walk from breathing in too much pollution.
Feryal Demirci, the deputy mayor of Hackney, said: “Failing to act on poor air quality, which causes nearly 10,000 premature deaths across London every year, is not an option, and that’s why we’re being bolder than ever in our efforts to tackle it. We’re thrilled to be launching our ultra-low emissions streets – the first of their kind in the UK – which will reclaim the streets from polluting petrol and diesel vehicles, and improve the area for thousands of people every day.”
Do you think that having electric only streets is a good idea? How easy do you think this will be to enforce? Let us know below
Firstly, this will limit the times sales people can carry out their legal business and once again, cyclists are mentioned. With the amount of tax payers money being spent on cycle lanes etc, is it not time that riders paid road tax and insurance to help pay for these so-called improvements?
I looked at the photo, saw the cyclists and immediately assumed there would be the usual rhetoric about cyclists. Congratulations Peter, you didn’t disappoint. This is an initiative to reduce emissions to improve peoples health and bicycles do not emit any. Perhaps it’s time to start taxing couch potatoes for their extra burden on the health service?
Simon, what about the “couch potatoes” who are too old or infirm to ride a bike or don’t they count? Young mothers or fathers with small children too young to cycle? Somebody with a weekly shop in bags? Typical “cyclist eco warriors”, look at ME, I’m a “healthy cyclist”, (but I ignore road signs because I’m untraceable.)
My intention was not to comment on the validity of the scheme in this report (which does seem to be rather ill conceived at best). My comments are around the fact that, regardless of the report content on this (or any other site), if you show a picture or mention cycling even in passing, the ignorent masses immediately start to blame the cyclist for every offence known to man. Why, for instance, should a cyclist pay for road improvements when the motorist does not? Surely no one is still so ill informed to believe the “car tax” is a charge for the use/wear and tear of the roads?
I think that it’s you who’s ill informed Simon. VED goes into the government’s coffers along with other taxes. The government uses this for many things including the upkeep of major roads, otherwise known as the “strategic road network” . Small roads are generally kept up together by local councils using council tax & other local taxes. Whilst people still call it Road Tax, which was correct until the late 1930’s, some of the VED raised therefore does go back into maintaining the major road network, albeit I have to concede, very little of it looking at the state of our roads.
Of course all taxes go into a pot. Unfortunately some people still believe that it’s only the tax that they pay on their car that goes towards road maintenance/improvements. If that was the case then the VED would not be based on emissions, with many car owners paying nothing.
And what is it that cyclists contribute “ simon” ?
I, as a motorist pay for road improvements thru my taxes.
As a UK citizen we all pay for road improvements through our taxes. As car drivers we will pay slightly more through fuel and VED (where applicable) and that is fair due to the extra wear and tear. As a car driver and cyclist I’m often paying extra and not damaging the road, but that’s my choice.
So do I as a cyclist! public transport user, motorist and pedestrian. While the planet insists on producing too many children, taxes will only increase!
It called road tax
No it not!
But that is exactly what it was when first introduced, the heavier the vehicle the more you paid, but hey it does not matter as it does not get spent on the roads anyway
You’re missing the point “ simon”
Registration is only there as a means of legally allowing the vehicle to be on the road, think of it as membership of the road fraternity.
All Cyclist pay tax thereby their tax they pay goes for the upkeep of the roads so please all motorist drop that argument it’s totally irrelevant.
Also there is no road tax and there hasn’t been since 1937 so again stop using the term. Maintenance of roads comes out of general taxation.
I own a Nissan Leaf and a Nissan Qashqai I will be glad to get rid of my Qashqai in 18 months it cost to much to run in comparison to the Leaf.
Every time a cyclist draws breath, he/she breathes out carbon dioxide, never a mention of the pollution this causes.
No, but it’s not only cyclists who do that, you for instance are another polluter.
Ever thought that cyclists cause more emissions? As often drivers have to slow down behind them and are up and down through the gearbox.
Simon just so you are aware, the emissions released on creating the bike, the tyres, wear on tyres, brakes, your cyclist clothes, your waste, what happens when cyclists run red lights, breaking the speed limits, undertaking on the inside of vehicles. I for one work, pay my taxes, haven’t been to the hospital for years but I’m expected to let my taxes be spent on other people using cycle lanes made from my taxes that were earn from having to drive to work due to where I live. unfortunately you do seem to be lacking a certain train of thought. especially for disabled people, parents, people living in the country side. ect ect
Not sure what point you are trying to make here with that jumble of thoughts. Certainly doesn’t seem to be related to anything I’ve said!
Cyclists use the roads why shouldn’t they contribute to pay for cycle lanes , are you to simple to understand that “ simon” and let’s not forget cyclists Who ride on the pavement and jump red lights , and cause accidents , if that was a car driver they’d be fined and prosecuted unlike most cyclists who cause accidents and jump red lights
Nobody pays “road tax”, but will agree with the idea of insurance at least for cycles.
Anyone who has Home Insurance on their household contents has PUBLIC LIABILITY Insurance to cover the after affects from the negligence including from riding a bicycle among many things. The problem is the many people who do not have such cover but at one time cover could be bought to cover the risk under a PEDAL CYCLE policy
Insurance only covers what you declare unless the policy document states otherwise. Most only cover for bikes if you declare that you have a bike and want it covered. I am not certain that the cover extends to public liability when colliding with another person or damaging property. I would certainly never assume it. Unless you have confirmed that the public liability cover of your household policy covers you for causing damage or injury while riding your bike do not assume this to be true. Ask your insurer in writing to confirm this.
It would make sense for cyclists to be required to have insurance by law, just like cars. It would be harder to police but if the fine for not having it included an automatic denial of ANY claim made by them for costs or damages that might be a severe enough measure to make most cyclists take positive action to ensure this is part of their insurance. I doubt the cost of the extra premium would be high so why not do it? After all they are saving on other forms of transport.
Certainly the way a large minority of cyclists ignore anything in the highway code and scrape up the sides of cars as have observed then its time they started to pay their dues and get prosecuted just like errant motorists do.
“Road Tax” does not pay for roads. Perhaps commenters should be banned from posting worthless opinions?
No Government will ring fence taxes or charges.
Most cyclists are also car owners who pay road tax and therefore simply spend less time in the car.
I would suggest that most cyclist are car users as well. Would that mean they are being taxed twice?
once again the motorist is a cash cow. if people NEED to go somewhere, then they have to go there. hybrids etc arent cheap compared to standard cars and the battery pack often eats into much needed (in some cases) space in the car/boot. this WILL NOT cure the issue, it will just make money for whoever the fines go to. if the government were REALLY bothered about air quality, they would NOT be expanding airports but would instead use the areas for FREE car parking where people could use a FREE park and ride system using fully electric buses/trams and tube/train systems NOT by fining drivers.
Precisely. Government policy is inconsistent. They have repeatedly failed to meet air quality standards set by the EU, so now they are stuck with last minute panic measures, which they have neatly left to Councils, so it is Councils and not the Govt. which will get the blame.
They should, years ago, have put in place coherent and long term strategies for tackling pollution; pollution which is affecting people’s health to various degrees, including killing people. Instead we have this tax on motorists, while the third runway at Heathrow has been given the go ahead and plans for electrification of main train lines in some parts of the country, has been abandoned, so trains will have to run on diesel!!
I see some people on here are blaming the EU, but the really worrying thing is once we’ve left th EU, the Govt. and Councils will have no-one to stop them abandoning anti-pollution measures and creating long term, sustainable and realistic alternative measures.
We must be one of the smallest nation on the planet but are trying to save it ,are the others somewhere else perhaps on the oceans with big ships that 16 of these produce more than all the cars on the planet every one knows the do but out of sight out mined
I live and work in London and often drive on mentioned streets… the fact that I never heard about such scheme tell the story of how it is being implemented…. obviously, some can say – “maybe you were not paying attention”.. fair point, but unlikely. What it is – it is hastily implemented stupid idea to make little bit more money under pretence of environment protection. Anyone who driven on roads in Hackney and Islington knows that they are one of the worst Boroughs in London. Deliberately confusing signs, stupid inefficient layouts and never ending congestion day and night – all designed to lure drivers into one or the other type of trap. Same here – why nobody heard about the scheme? – because they don’t want you to know, they want you to get into their trap, miss some obscure sign and only find out when you get PCN.
We’re just following another EU directive. The proposal is ludicrous. It will not decrease pollution, because cars will just have to drive further to avoid the zones, thereby increasing congestion and pollution.
Surely if they stopped pulling down trees to build houses then this problem would not be as bad. It is a well known fact that trees absorb Carbon dioxide and emit Oxygen. Would it not be better to plant more trees?
Its been reported the contractors like Balfour Beaty who have maintained the highways in city’s up North like Sheffield have been felling mature trees in the streets as they have looked maintained & causing the pavements to be uneven and plant a young tree as a substitute !
This is about reducing NOX not CO2. NOX is produced when anything is burnt due to the atmosphere being mostly made up of Nitrogen.
Just avoud London is my solution.
Been there once Rich…. never again. Like Manchester City Centre… wouldnt go there if it saved to world.. filthy disgusting place.
Oh and Mobile , the bike hire scheme has just pulled out of Manchester, but the plebs in charge are trying to keep it quiet!
Not that i have used these streets or live in London but do travel to hospitals in London, ofren getting lost, will the disabled have consessionsin these streets ?
That was my first thought. It would be relatively easy to exclude blue badge holders, as they would be registered, but what about those people who clearly have difficulties walking or using public transport for any great distance, but do not yet quite meet the exceedingly strict criteria for a blue badge? Those are the ones who will suffer most.
In your dreams
Brilliant. How wil Londoners living in these “zones” get things delivered? How will they get anywhere, (buses and taxis emit pollution as well). More EU c**p.
What happens when someone dies? Do they have to walk the coffin a couple of miles to the edge of the area?
How far will people have to take their bins to be emptied as bin wagons are all diesel?
Herses are probably exempt. Bin collection companies will probably be exempt because they are machines not “unnecessary” passenger vehicles.
Or they’ll be told to use the roads at “off peak times”, tuff says the so called “cash strapped councils. More noise at night. Bull. Councils are fithly rich and only spend money on their “employees”.
They also spend money on councillors “expenses”. Many of these councillors don’t have jobs but live on bloated councillors “expenses”
All very well, but how will people be alerted to the fact they are about to enter this zone and will diversions be well sign-posted.
Martin are you having a laugh there is no way they will tell you and as for diversion signs are you living in cuckoo land ,councils do not make life easier they are experts at making things harder for the people who they do NOT serve
You are joking!! Aren’t you?
Just another stealth tax,why not try to solve important issues like gun and knife crimes instead of constantly persecuting the motorist
This will just cause vehicles to drive around and avoid these streets. So overall emissions will increase, just not in these particular streets. Increasing travel distance and increasing congestion in the surrounding area will not be taken into account in the analysis. Therefore, as a solution it has limitations and dangerous side effects. A far better and more effective solution would be the introduction of emissions reduction additives into the national fuel supply. Small businesses in the designated streets will suffer and due to the regressive nature of this solution with its fining mechanism it is the poorer members of society who will suffer. By any fair analysis the dis-benefits will most likely outweigh any benefits.
Is there no wind there to blow it into the next street
I used to go to London quite a lot to see friends. Gave up. Not worth the hassle. It has all become far too restrictive. We will all be disappearing up our own backsides at this rate.
“At the moment, ANY combustion vehicle entering the area, ASIDE from residents and local businesses”
Absolutely typical idiotical attitude…..not in my back yard….but its OK for the locals to pollute their (own)
streets, but not if you are from the outside !!!
Another load of ill thought out b****cks from a bunch of idiots who have nothing better to do than harass
the poor motorist probably only trying to earn a decent living.
Dave
This is obviously a cash generating scheme, 7-10am and 4-7pm, is designed to catch people out who unknowingly or by sheer bad luck happen to be in the area and will get fined. What are we expected to keep our eyes off the road and just concentrate on looking for stealthy signs that ban this that and the other not to get caught.
If they are so concerned with the pollution and congestion make it simple, ban all vehicles from these roads altogether, but wait that will not generate any cash, OK lets hammer the motorist, problem of pollution and congestion solved, a nice little earner.
Another cash cow. You will find that monitoring stations in London are set up in places where traffic is particularly (pun intended) heavy, like Marylebone road/Baker street. At these places, traffic consists mainly of Buses, Lorries and Taxies. giving a false picture of overall pollution.
what about the tourist who innocently drives down one or more of these exemption roads. Where does the money raised go?
It is the constant fining of drivers that give the public reason to believe that all these changes are only revenue raising exercises to balance the books
Congestion charges are a nonsense the driving public have already paid to use the roads with the car tax which the government has had to reassess as the public bought their new car based on low emissions and the government lost out on average a hundred pounds on each car per year so now they have set a common charge of £140 per car per year
Manchester made £10m from just one area, Oxford Road.. “but the signage is perfectly clear” cry the councilors and our unelected mayor, counting the money to see how much they can increase their expenses by.
After Brexit we won’t have the EU looking after our health – left to itself the UK government would not be doing anything at all about poor air quality… or polluted beaches, or excessive working hours, etc etc. Brexit may be good for rich financiers like Farage or Rees-Mogg but it doesn’t look good for the rest of us.
Its not a Brexit board you twonk!!!!
It’s very like Slough in years gone by declaring itself a ‘Nuclear-free Zone’. These ignoramuses (?ignorami?) forget that ‘”Pollution is blowin’ in the wind – it’s blowin’ in the wind” (Especially that coming from their mouths)
It is very similar to Slough, whose councillors declared it a ‘Nuclear-free Zone’ many years ago.
These ignoramuses (?ignorami?) forget that “Pollution is blowin’ in the wind, my friend, it’s blowin’ in the wind” – especially the wind coming from their mouths.
It would reduce some problems by declaring “cycle-free” streets – but the outcry would be ‘They’re knocking the cyclist again!’ Surprise, surprise. It’s only the Lycra brigade that will complain – the others are sensible of the problems they cause.
If cyclists are to use the roads, surely they should undergo some form of training and testing, as do motorists and motor cyclists? Knowing the rules regulations and protocols of using the roads will keep us all safer.
But I did see and idiot this morning throw open his back door and only quick action by the cyclist avoided a collision…. an idiot kid got out and ran to his mates.. the driver, drove 20 yards and pulled into the school car park to disgorge the rest of his brood.
cyclists should be fined for not having lights and it should be inforced by impounding the bikes until the fine is paid to many riding around at night without any lights
Never mind the lights!! Compulsory insurance for all cyclists – if they do not have lights then the insurance is invalid – same as a car. No insurance – crunch the bike, require the cyclist to have a licence – pass the test and get points on the licence. Isn’t that what they do to car drivers? A bicyclist’s stupidity is just as dangerous as a car driver’s stupidity – even stevens and fair’s fair
This is nonsense. UK pollution levels have been falling steadily for years, as shown on DEFRA’s website (just google them, can’t paste the graphs here). So these punitive measures tell us more about the obsessions of our representatives than they tackle a real problem.
Bet busses and taxis would still be allowed. I’l just drive around and pollute elsewhere 🙂
On the face of it, it looks like some pioneering initiative to help us to live better lives and all that, but really it’s just another money making scam. Why £130? how did they come to this figure. Well i can take a guess. They know they will catch a few motorists each month and this figure keeps this little scam viable. Pays at least for the kit required plus a nice bit extra when they manage to trap lost drivers or those new to the area. Why don’t they just have barriered access allowing residents and business owners through during restricted times. Nobody gets a fine because they cannot get through without an access card. Also the barrier setup would make it awkward for people so they will stay away anyway and take an alternative route. Answer: No, because they would not make money doing that. Greed everywhere these days. And nobody cares if you die prematurely i can guarantee you that. On the plus side, it means cyclists are safer as long as they don’t meet a mad electric car driver silently passing them with barely an inch to spare…. Anyway, it’s not about saving people, it’s about making dosh. Nobody can tell me any different. Take the instant fine away, and issue drivers with a first time warning, threatening a fine next time it happens, maybe. I would be behind that, but stealing money from people that are already over taxed is not acceptable to me. I’m a cyclist and a car driver. I don’t hate car drivers and I don’t hate cyclists, because I am a grown man that can think like an adult. I would not make a very good politician, because I don’t like stealing money from people. Rant over.
Don’t forget you can be fined for passing a cyclist too close.
Can you be fined for undertaking?? Sounds like die (sorry – due) care and attention to me.
When the congestion charge was introduced certain vehicles were exempt. Why? Electric hybrid or other still causes congestion.
So if you want to drive in central London whatever vehicle you drive should be paying the congestion charges.
The T charge is just to make more money.
Hi mate
oh, and what about alternative routes people will take during these restrictions? It will cause more congestion there will it not? So where are the cuts in emissions going to come from. In reality it will not encourage a significant number of people to use bicycles instead. Bikes are quite an effort to use and only for those that are motivated to exercise. It will not make any significant difference to car use I can tell you, so there will be no cuts in emissions from this scheme. what we need is a better bicycle infrastructure and more education on the benefits of cycling to get people really motivated. THAT will get more people on bikes, and easing pollution from car exhausts. FINING people crazy amounts of money will not.
I don’t think any council should be proud when they make life difficult for both their residants & those visiting. There are now increasingly complex requirements for driving in certain places that many of us will simply not understand, especially visitors & so end up facing fines. Too often statistics are used to justify ever more draconian environmental measures. Statistics can never take into account all relevent factors & as such are inherently unreliable & yet they are always used as justification that further action is needed.
Trying to reduce traffic at peak times yet the local residents can still drive in that area, surely it should apply to all vehicles driving/causing pollution
Especially as the timing is set to school run times. We need to be encouraging children to walk to school. Double benefits – less polution and slimmer children
The usual shroud waving on “approx 40 to 50k deaths each year… which means we dont know, have no evidence whatsoever to back up any figures but we need to include something to look like the information is plausible….
Im glad I dont like in London!
Surely with all these extra charges for Combustion engined cars in London / Diesel cars over 4 years old being barred from a ring around the city of Birmingham / and Michael Gove’s ‘dream’ of having only electric vehicles in 21 years time – THAT MEANS ABOUT 3 STOPS FOR RECHARGING ON YOUR SCOTTISH HOLIDAY – surely it’s high time that ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED.
I wonder if the people who live there have been consulted. I guess they will soon get cheesed off when their friends and relatives can’t visit and they can’t get any deliveries to their homes..
I know emergency vehicles will be exempt/be able to claim back, but what if they weren’t?
Petrol/diesel police cars; the police will have to consider whether it’s worth another £130 to send a scenes-of-crime van in to collect evidence after a serious crime.
And what if there’s a ‘chase’ involving a joyrider, will the police stop at the zone boundary and let the criminals escape, lest the chasing cars are all fined ?
Does the restriction include two-wheel and three-wheel vehicles (motorcycle licence rideable)?
Diesel ambulances will stop just outside the zone (and risk theft/vandalism from/of an unsecured vehicle) while the crews run the last half-mile with a stretcher and a load of equipment. Actually it might be cheaper to send in the combustion-engine (aviation fuel) air ambulances, since there won’t be a VRM plate for enforcement cameras to read.
Diesel fire engines at £130 per vehicle per callout; there might now be a delay in deployment while someone works out how many vehicles they can afford to use to tackle the emergency, or whether they can wait another 30 minutes until the restricted period ends.
Very easy to check and no doubt to enforce as well subject to enough people being employed to monitor it as actually collect the fines. Maybe it is time for buisinesses to abandon congested city centre and move out into more rural areas. Less congestion, less pollution. Do what the old Victorians did and build accommodation for the companies work force to encourage people to move out of London and the major centres. A sort of Industrial Revolution in reverse. Could that ultimately reduce coast in wages, rents, rates and so on. Save works mega bucks on fares and or fuel costs. Utopia maybe, but over time surely it could work.
Unlikely though as big business will just up their prices to cover additional cost, if they can be persuaded to give ages rises to cover transport costs. Local gov. probably won’t help because they want to tap into a new revenue stream from a so far captive audience. If it is good for the country then let’s give it a serious go.
I read this article and had to double-check that it’s not April 1st.
I then wondered if the Russians have circulated it as fake news in order to damage the British economy or start a rebellion…
Are these councillors for real? Will they drive into the zones? Or are they conveniently exempt from charges?
Another reason to avoid London..
Cyclists who ride after eating beans should pay a pollution charge!
I am registered disabled and rely on the help of motability to be able to drive.
They do not have many electric cars and the ones that are available are too much.
When they do things like this they never think of people that for 1 can not use public transport and 2 even if I could have an electric car I would have great difficulty to charge it as I live in a flat.
It is same old thing tread down the poor and help the rich get richer.
Yeah, “it’s the same old thing, tread down the poor”. Yeah, I’m disabled so I should get everything for free.
What an ass hole thing to say. I work n I’m disabled I have a badge I need my vehicle as I finding walking extremely difficult. I rely on my petrol engine to get me around simple.
It has nothing to do with emissions its just another money grabbing exercise of using the motorist as a cash cow. Sturgeon in Scotland will be next to try and pull this stunt.
Incidentally my last comment about Birmingham excluding DIESEL CARS over 4 years and PETROL CARS over 10 years entering a ring under penalty STUPIDLY is preserving mainly industrial and commercial sites, whereas domestic dwellings start just outside this ring – from Camp Hill and all points south.
London has th best public transport system in the country use it. Because of this can I suugest that expensive private car journeys in London are an unnecessary waste of hard earned money.
If only the above was available across the rest of the country.
What about trades vans needing access to properties in the zone(s)?
And LPG, which is clean enough for use indoors in food factories, but is still combustion-engine?
It won’t be long before this w*nker Sadeq Khan will bring in fines for simply being on the streets of London, never mind driving on them.
As usual a half baked plan not thought out thoroughly, what happens with all the people like myself who who live in terraced houses who have to park in the street with no means of charging an electric car, you are not allowed to run cables across the footpath or highway, what a load of rubbish, as usual.
On a slightly different angle, the Government goes on about 40-50,000 deaths a year by people breathing in toxic fumes, but it quite happily allows people to kill them themselves by smoking, and charging them about £9 per pack of 20, to do so.
Londoners, bless ’em , are already paying for the ‘green’ brigade follies. Many transport companies are already turning down loads, which are destined for London.
Because there is such a huge cost in complying with the ‘green’ rules haulage rates, for those that will carry, are far higher for going into London to cover the charges and new equipment needed. No driver, in his right mind, willingly delivers into London. The horrendous traffic, parking tickets issued during deliveries (Oh yes they do!). Absolutely nowhere to park for a break, that you are legally obliged to take. I was born there. If I never go back it will be too soon.
Whatever the cost many will not stop using their vehicles Only a total ban will stop them even then they will try to find ways round it People are obsessed with using their cars Some MUST drive everywhere no matter the cost Many have forgotten they once learned to walk
Anyone who is seriously interested should look at these streets on a map, I printed the map and highlighted the streets mentioned, it makes absolutely no sense, there are a number of streets in between those mentioned which are not affected, also a few of the streets mentioned stretch out like a spiders legs, but all in between are not affected. If the purpose is to reduce pollution then it should cover a whole specific area, like the congestion charge does, which you can avoid by going around, this is just farcical, just above those streets and to the left are major roads which carry a lot of traffic hence produce pollution, these few roads do not carry much traffic so are not the culprits of pollution. This is very very clearly a money raising exercise as it serves no purpose other than just to catch the poor motorist who might inadvertently turn into one of these roads from the jungle around them by mistake.
I am lucky enough to be able to vote with my feet. I simply will stay out of places that impose this charge. I dislike cities anyway and would rather be by the sea or in the country, with nice fresh breezes to blow the pollution away!
Has nobody heard of a thing called “the wind”?
What’s the point of introducing restrictions on some streets if adjacent streets have no restrictions?
The adjacent streets will inevitably have larger volumes of traffic which will mean those streets will become more polluted and a slight breeze in the right direction will send the pollution to the streets that have the restrictions!
So these streets in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency are not for the many, just for the few.
AS ANPR doesn’t register motorbikes, the most polluting vehicle per person carried, it will be an empty gesture toward air quality. Check out Mythbusters comparison on youtube f you doubt this. And remember motorbikes can have cat converters legally removed.
I cannot believe that motoring organisations and MP’s who represent the people of average income and below are not condemning this .
Is this actually legal? What about the people who live there, their families and visitors. It maybe only am/pm select hours but it will affect workers, hospital visits and numerous other sections of the community who care and help people. Really bad idea that will do sod all for the environment. bring on the elections and get these high earners out of their jobs they obviously don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us. yet another attack on the poor. Where is the money for a new EE car they cost thousands more than the average still I expect these few rule makers will have one or be using rate payers money to drive one or be ferried around in one!
i am disabled
i have no choice about what type of veh i drive as i need lots of room to put my electric wheelchair in developing also why are car manufactures not developing hydrogen cars as these are much cleaner than all other types of fuel even electric but we are all being lied to about diesel cars as in cities where they have been banned pollution has gone up and diesel cars are not all the same as a lot of diesel cars new technology has not been taken into consideration we will never be able to run totally on electric IE heavy goods people who have caravans and long distance driving so please let us have more hydrogen vehicles as they only produce clean water
Yet another great idea in theory but so badly thought out it beggars belief.
I don’t live in London, (because I can’t afford to) and I drive a van in 3 or 4 times a week. I would love to buy an electric van but I’m self employed and can’t afford the 30+ grand to buy an all electric van. The large electric vans don’t do the mileage I need to do on one charge either.
It really narks me that we’ve had electric vehicles on our roads since the 1950s in the form of milk floats but big oil companies together with the governments backing have consistently resisted the change we all knew had to come 30 or more years ago.
Its OK for the likes of Royal Mail, DHL etc with their millions to be able to afford a fleet of electric vehicles. Yet again its the ordinary working class folk who will end up worse off through this. Are there subsidies for these vehicles?
Thank you petrolprices.com. I would not have known anything about this had it not been for you.