It's ludicrously relaxed. These are just vandals who like to fight "the machine" the only people really affected by it are van and lorry drivers, eg tradesmen...hmmm, now I think about it they are the kind of people who have the right equipment and tools to do that to a camera š¤
I have no dog in this fight and dont have this where I live... but am I crazy or is 9 years not even that long?
My car is well over 15 years old and still runs fine. Seems to be it's more wasteful to get rid of every diesel thats only 9 years old instead of working on regulations to make all future ones better for the environment?
A flat charge always hurts the poor and no one else. It's a terrible way to go about it, especially if they cant afford to get a new diesel or upgrade their current one.
Again, I dont know anything about it and have no fight in it what-so-ever.... but that just seems like common sense to me.
I'm guessing having a steel-cutting saw-blade and running before the authorities show up......blade-runners, as opposed to the clone "retirement" units LAPD, NYPD, Tokyo PD, Scotland Yard and other law enforcement agencies have from time to time used.
Oh I was about to guess a futuristic bounty hunter tasked with violently decommissioning āreplicants,ā androids that have broken free of their human mastersā control.
Fun fact: The name Blade Runner was taken from an entirely different story, *[The Bladerunner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bladerunner)*, which was about smuggling medical supplies (e.g scalpels).
The story that the Blade Runner movies are based on is called *[Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F)* and Deckard is just referred to as a bounty hunter.
They bought the rights to the name to use for the movie and called the bounty hunters blade runners, even though it has nothing to do with the story.
I understand this is a bit of a controversial topic but I'm not in favor of this kind of vandalism and am not going to call these people a cool name like that.
For petrols, its Euro4, yeah. So early 2000's.
For diesels, its Euro6. So at the earliest, 2012ish.
There's then an additional issue/complication with larger vehicles like vans.
The purpose of these is NOT to reduce carbon emissions, it's to reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) and PM2.5 emissions. These are known to cause health effects such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease, birth defects etc. They are also the cause of haze and acid rain. Areas with a high amount of these emissions have lower life expectancy than other comparable areas.
The UK government website states most vehicles newer than 2005 meet these standards.
[NO2 - EPA](https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#Effects)
[ULEZ Car Emission Standards - gov.uk](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/cars)
Edit: I did some more digging. If you registered your car in 2006 or later it was required to meet these standards.
The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is an area in London, England, where an emissions standard based charge is applied to non-compliant road vehicles. Plans were announced by London Mayor Boris Johnson in 2015 for the zone to come into operation in 2020. Sadiq Khan, the subsequent mayor, introduced the zone early in 2019. The zone initially covered Central London, the same area as the existing London congestion charge; in 2021, Khan extended the zone to cover the area within the North Circular and South Circular roads. In 2023 it was further extended to all of Greater London, covering over 1,500 square kilometres (580 sq mi) and approximately 9 million people.
Not gonna lie, I'd be upset about that too.
Here in California, there are now so many EVs that the state has lost revenue on its multiple gasoline taxes. To combat this, they're starting a program where they're going to charge EV drivers a mileage fee. I don't have an EV but I'd be furious if I did.
~~Edit: legitimately have no idea why I'm being downvoted lol. Yall wild~~ it turned around lol.
People arenāt really that upset about it though. Khan just won reelection for London mayor by a huge margin ā as big as his margin 3 years ago. A lot of Tories were predicting he was going to lose based on ULEZ backlash alone.
ULEZ really is not that unpopular, despite the loudest voices online telling you otherwise.
I think when it comes to cities, a lot of the people who actually live there do not like how much traffic there is. Any policy that's aimed at reducing traffic gets a lot of welcome from the locals. The people most impacted by a lot of these policies are the people who live outside the city who also don't want to make use of public transportation. NYC was also supposed to introduce a new toll aimed at traffic in the city, which the governor blocked, and she's been facing protests over that decision
Our annual registration that ranges from $200-700 is supposed to do that. Along with the multiple gas taxes, which are obviously less revenue than before, but still a massive amount of money, I'm sure.
Idk if you've been to California, but out roads fucking suck. They've been shit since I started driving, and I'm sure they were shit before, too.
This is largely happening everywhere. Politicians had easy wins for decades expanding road infrastructure, knowing they wouldnāt be around when future politicians and citizens were stuck figuring out how to maintain it.
Taxes suck but roads donāt grow on trees. Nobody wants to get behind driving less, so you have to either pay more or accept worse roads. This isnāt a political issue or even an environmental one. We have over invested in roads. Like someone who bought too much house and now canāt afford the upkeep on all of it.
Millions of people are behind driving less, but governments (in bed with oil and manufacturing corporations) arenāt behind upgrading public transport.
Semi trucks and other heavy vehicles do the damage to the roads. Companies that require the use of lots of semi trucks should pay a much higher tax that goes to road maintenance seeing as they are the primary ones doing the damage.
Not sure how you think the roads in California suck. Iāve driven in most states, and I donāt think there are any other states with even close to the amount of traffic that maintain their roads as well as California. You can drive all day on 40 to 70 year old freeways and never see a single pothole. And the roads are basically never closed down during daytime hours. They some lanes and repave overnight and have it back open for morning rush hour.
For people who think cali roads are bad, I invite you to drive anywhere east of the Mississippi River and report back. The Pennsylvania turnpike has had major maintenance going on since circa 1890 and it still is somehow in disrepair in places.
Heās a republican. Who lives in the outskirts of San Diego and their roads suck in Poway and East County because of their local republican districts.
> less revenue than before
Pretty much answered your own question. Registration doesn't really matter, since that's applied equally to EV and non-EV. Lost revenue from gas tax needs to be made up by the drivers who are no longer paying into it, but still using the road.
That true, but the amount of gas tax used to correlate (roughly) with the amount of road usage. Which again correlates to the amount of maintenance needed on the roads.
With more EV's on the road the road usage stays the same, hence the maintenance need stay the same. But the revenue from gas tax for said maintenance goes down.
Do you see the issue now?
Trucks cause more wear and tear on roads than cars but they pay the same price for fuel and stuff.
If the amount of wear and tear is the issue, we need to have a talk about truck and full-size SUV owners.
You were being downvoted because unlike america, Europe, especially capitals have very extensive public transport system yet people still chose to be a bunch of lazy cunts and get their personal cars to go anywhere.
In Europe is totally doable to live without a car, even when traveling between cities so taxing people to get their lazy asses to public transport is a very nice thing. I wish we had that too in my country
Every state will go through this reckoning. They pay for road repair and maintenance through gas tax. Nobody decades ago expected gas demand to crater and for cars to still need roads at the same time.
This is a lot like people who go to southern states because there's no sales tax or income tax. People don't love service cuts, so the states make up that cost through property tax, car tax, business tax, license fees, etc. You're paying for those services in some other way, or you're not getting them.
Not "green enough". The goal isn't to help the environment, it's to improve air quality so people don't have to breath shitty air if they live by a road. The emissions standards are based on particulates and other unwanted gases emitted by the engine being under certain levels.
Worth adding rhat Khan was told to expand ULEZ by the central government, otherwise they wouldn't provide funding for TFL.
Since TFL is essential to any kind of order in London, but does not make a profit (nor should it be forced to try) ULEZ got expanded.
Idk shit about london/UK or these zones, but yes it sounds exactly like you said.
In germany we have zones in our cities you can't drive into with old/dirty cars and every car got a grren/yellow or red sticker. Only greensticker cars are allowed to drive in these zones.
We have that for years now.
The air pollution dropped around 5 percent from 2008 to 2014.
The interesting part isn't the low drop, but the particles in the pollution itself changed.
The smallest and most dangerous particles dropped 50%, carcinogenic soot particles dropped 60% and the ultrafine particles dropped 70%.
So in the end I would say it's not perfect and not the single best solution for our problems, but it's a part of it.
It did sting somewhat when I replaced my van, but it needed doing at some point. Most cars are petrol.
When they first came up with the idea diesel needed to be 3 years old and that was going to hurt, but this is not a new story.
ULEZ is about air quality within high density areas though. Not about GHG emissions. And I doubt the mayor of London can do anything when it comes to national/international flights.
Absolutely it's like that meme of a guy giving a presentation highlighting all the social and health benefits of green policies and then some random audience members shouting out 'but what if climate change is all a hoax'. So what if it is (it's not) we can still want the social and health benefits from these green policies and if they help the environment along the way well that's just an extra bonus.
why does this ridiculous level of environmental responsibility and enforcement always fall on regular citizens yet the ultra rich and corporations are damn near allowed to do whatever they want!?
The people cutting these down are absolute pieces of shit. Exposure to air pollution increases the risk of premature mortality from heart disease, stroke and lung cancer and is responsible for millions of deaths globally, every year.
Doesn't London have the most cctv cameras per square foot of any city in the world? You'd think they could follow these people all the way back to wherever they came from.
That stat was always because anywhere that serves alcohol had to have a certain amount of cctv cameras. Its not like the police or government had constant surveillance.
Nah, that was just an insurance thing. Buying a Ā£20 CCTV camera off of Amazon saved businesses thousands a year in insurance costs so obviously they started installing them. End result is "most CCTV cameras per square foot" but they're all shitty 240p cameras hooked up to a broken VHS recorder from the 80s they got at a car boot sale. It's practically impossible to track somebody when you have to manually request (possibly with a court signed warrant) every single recording to do it.
I wish the people that live in my home country, India, cared about air pollution as you do, we have air quality that is 8 times worse than the UK, which could potentially shave 5 years off your life span and literally nobody gives a shit
This only impacts cars older than 2004 for the most part. Itās less than 3% of cars and most of those are commercial vans and trucks. Itās really incentivizing companies to upgrade their old automobiles.
The people who are claiming this is impacting poor people driving old cars are way off base. How many low income folks are commuting to central London in 20 year old cars? The answer is not many if any at all. Parking is too expensive. They take the train or bus.
Nope, just gasoline cars older than 2004 and diesel cars older than.. 2014 or 2016 I forget which.
Something like only 3% of all cars in the area have to pay the fine. It's also more about air pollution than about climate change. That's why diesel cars have to be much newer, they spew out a lot more particulate matter which harms peoples health.
People live in cities, lots of people live in cities, lots of people drive cars, dirty polluting cars, this just states that the most polluting of cars have to park at a park and ride outside of that part of the city, and travel in an alternate way. The zones are usually only about a 20 minute walk in total.
Everyday there are more people in a city than the day that came before it. That means more pollution. Asking people that drive the worst offenders to park outside of a city, or neighborhood, and travel in using public transportation is incredibly sensible, and has been done all over the world.
Nearly, a 1983 Lambo wouldn't be charged, an '89 would, an '05 would, an '06 wouldn't. Assuming they met Euro 4 at the same point as anyone else rather than earlier. Registered classics over 40 years old are exempt.
I agree with you that the ultra rich and corporations are affected by most environmental measures way less than regular people, and that that's wrong.
But in this particular case the measure is intended to improve the air quality directly in the city. I'm fairly certain that private motor vehicles contribute most to the worse air pollution in a city center compared to the average level of pollution.
(I have not researched this though, If someone has evidence supporting the opposite, please enlighten me)
Do you remember when London had smog so bad back in the 1800ās that people were dying?
Rich and corporations are adding to greenhouse gases, but itās everyone living in London that is contributing to their own air pollution.
This issue is actually on every one living in London and not some rich heiress flying miles over London
Pollution in London kills poor people.
The vast vast majority of private vehicles passing through London are compliant.
ITS LONDON. You donāt really need to drive, stop thinking about this through your idea of public transport where you live.
I don't really have any sympathy for them. This is the same area as the congestion charge and public transit is really damn good in London. The vast majority of londoners don't have cars and these older cars are just causing more noise and air pollution in people's neighborhoods. If they don't like it leave or vote. If you want to fight the surveillance state this also ain't it bud.
Irony being if you go on many of these Facebook groups where people are celebrating these āblade runnersā, a large contingent of them donāt even live in London.
Meanwhile donāt mind us actually down here, weāll just continue to breathe our shit air where it doesnāt impact them in the slightest.
ULEZ and LEZ (the earlier scheme with a smaller area) have made a noticeable difference.
They live in dumb little echo chambers where they think they are saving London from the tyranny of Mayor Khan. They donāt give a fuck about air quality, or the fact that they are putting people in danger with their vandalism.
I think these guys are already copying. The government tried installing security cameras on council estates in Salford about ten years ago. Literally cameras that can zoom into your living room. The locals got out the chainsaws.
This is probably one of the most transit accessible areas on earth, there are many other options besides driving. Why so much butthurt? Do drivers really feel like every public space has to cater to their personal transit choice?
Couldnāt they just boost another person and take the camera out instead of the entire fucking traffic light.. now thereās a chance someone getting T Boned
This is Uxbridge/Cowley drive through this junction all the time. If they aren't covered in paint they are cut down. Lagest group I've heard have issue with expansion of the zone is people with work vans. It's why they seem to be well equipped to destroy and disrupt. If you make a man with power tools spend so much then wouldn't you know it they will use those tools. Maybe need to make the men with briefcases spend a bit more.
Fine, we'll just start flipping some cars and blocking roads then, if vandalism is allowed now. It worked before in the Netherlands to pass meaningful change. No reason to assume it won't work in London.
Do jets normally fly through the middle of roads where you live? No? Well, this camera is supposed to reduce local particulate counts, not ghg emissions, so your question is stupid either way
no it hasnāt, stop lying. Public transport in London is amazing, low cost and very regular, therefore they could easily hop onto a bus with one of those granny grocery trolleys and get their groceries so no their ability to do that hasnāt been taking away. You are just entitled lazy people who think the whole city revolves around you. Old people are also a danger on the road and shouldnāt be driving.
On the flip side my neighbour is old and a complete liability in his car (think that episode of South Park) and now gets taxiās everywhere.
So not only is the air a little cleaner but everyone is a little safer.
Yay cut them down so I can pay more tax to put them back up again so you can cut them down so I pay more tax- you get the idea.
I don't want to outright brand them as vandals because the idea itself is flawed but I feel like they're shooting themselves in the foot somewhat.
Funny isn't it how people get into screaming piss fits online when JSO lob a bit of orange cornflour over some rocks but they're perfectly happy when idiots with angle grinders more or less burn unfathomable amounts of public money cutting down these cameras. I'm sure this comment will get downvoted all to hell, but every downvote is just an admission of the hypocrisy involved.
Yes a tax on poor people. Poor people famously can afford to pay several thousands of pounds to buy a car, and then can also afford the thousands of pounds spent a year to maintain that car.
Actual poor people just walk, bike, or take public transit since itās almost infinitely cheaper
Carbon tracking cameras?
Cameras that run every plate that drives by. If your vehicle doesn't adhere to the stringent environmental standards for that area, you get fined.
Every day. 12 ~~euros~~ pounds or something close. Pounds. Not euros. Whoops lol.
Euros wtf is that this is the UK pal š
How many "toppins" is that?
8 duppits
Sixpence none the richer
kiss me, beneath the carbon cameras
Swing me, from its dangling wires.
Bring, bring, bring your powered saw
Haāpenny fibberts
10 bob and tuppence.
Gimme 5 bees, youād say
āEllo, Guvānor. Lube job while you wait?
I'm in the US, how many drone strikes is that?
About half a freedom's worth
Could you convert that to Ukrainian DJI please?
no
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
r/theydidthemath
Enough to feed ALL the birds, if they were real.
Conveniently converted for redditors from civilized mainland nations. Thanks OP.
Then how about some freedom units???
About 13 stripper motivation coupons.
My man, I said civilized.
Iāll pay 17 dollhairs. And not one hair more!
Only half of Europe is civilized.
Says the person with CARBON TRACKING CAMERAS.
Stringent? Accidentally entered the ULEZ the other day and like most people I found my fairly old car complied and I didnāt have to pay anything.
It's ludicrously relaxed. These are just vandals who like to fight "the machine" the only people really affected by it are van and lorry drivers, eg tradesmen...hmmm, now I think about it they are the kind of people who have the right equipment and tools to do that to a camera š¤
Is there potential for them to make it less "relaxed" in the future though? Thats what I would be most worried about.
There's potential for the government to announce marshal law and kill anyone that fails to comply. Be Armed Citizen! /s
Oi mate. You gotta loicence for bein in public?
Stringent? You have to have a 9 year old diesel or 19 year-old petrol car to be charged, over around 85% of cars meet the requirements.
I have no dog in this fight and dont have this where I live... but am I crazy or is 9 years not even that long? My car is well over 15 years old and still runs fine. Seems to be it's more wasteful to get rid of every diesel thats only 9 years old instead of working on regulations to make all future ones better for the environment? A flat charge always hurts the poor and no one else. It's a terrible way to go about it, especially if they cant afford to get a new diesel or upgrade their current one. Again, I dont know anything about it and have no fight in it what-so-ever.... but that just seems like common sense to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās called London, itās been around for ages.
Blade runners?
I'm guessing having a steel-cutting saw-blade and running before the authorities show up......blade-runners, as opposed to the clone "retirement" units LAPD, NYPD, Tokyo PD, Scotland Yard and other law enforcement agencies have from time to time used.
Oh I was about to guess a futuristic bounty hunter tasked with violently decommissioning āreplicants,ā androids that have broken free of their human mastersā control.
That's the only kind I know.
Fun fact: The name Blade Runner was taken from an entirely different story, *[The Bladerunner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bladerunner)*, which was about smuggling medical supplies (e.g scalpels). The story that the Blade Runner movies are based on is called *[Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F)* and Deckard is just referred to as a bounty hunter. They bought the rights to the name to use for the movie and called the bounty hunters blade runners, even though it has nothing to do with the story.
Damn replicants!
I understand this is a bit of a controversial topic but I'm not in favor of this kind of vandalism and am not going to call these people a cool name like that.
ULEZ ultra low emission zone, if your vehicle isn't fairly modern you have to pay extra to drive in that area
By fairly modern you mean from 2004-ish onwards I believe, so 20 years.
For petrols, its Euro4, yeah. So early 2000's. For diesels, its Euro6. So at the earliest, 2012ish. There's then an additional issue/complication with larger vehicles like vans.
Diesel itās more like from 2016.
No idea why someone downvoted you, you're 100% correct, it's 2016 - I had to get a new car because mine with a 2015.
Most people see it as an additional tax on the poor. Not everyone has the luxury of buying electric, hybrid and newer low carbon vehicles.
The purpose of these is NOT to reduce carbon emissions, it's to reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) and PM2.5 emissions. These are known to cause health effects such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease, birth defects etc. They are also the cause of haze and acid rain. Areas with a high amount of these emissions have lower life expectancy than other comparable areas. The UK government website states most vehicles newer than 2005 meet these standards. [NO2 - EPA](https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#Effects) [ULEZ Car Emission Standards - gov.uk](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/cars) Edit: I did some more digging. If you registered your car in 2006 or later it was required to meet these standards.
London makes you pay a tax to drive in the city. It's to cut emissions down, because it isn't healthy to breathe all that in
The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is an area in London, England, where an emissions standard based charge is applied to non-compliant road vehicles. Plans were announced by London Mayor Boris Johnson in 2015 for the zone to come into operation in 2020. Sadiq Khan, the subsequent mayor, introduced the zone early in 2019. The zone initially covered Central London, the same area as the existing London congestion charge; in 2021, Khan extended the zone to cover the area within the North Circular and South Circular roads. In 2023 it was further extended to all of Greater London, covering over 1,500 square kilometres (580 sq mi) and approximately 9 million people.
Is the Tl;Dr that people are being charged to drive through the city if their cars aren't green enough?
Aye. The aim of the ULEZ is to help improve air quality by reducing the number of vehicles in London that don't meet emissions standards.
Not gonna lie, I'd be upset about that too. Here in California, there are now so many EVs that the state has lost revenue on its multiple gasoline taxes. To combat this, they're starting a program where they're going to charge EV drivers a mileage fee. I don't have an EV but I'd be furious if I did. ~~Edit: legitimately have no idea why I'm being downvoted lol. Yall wild~~ it turned around lol.
People arenāt really that upset about it though. Khan just won reelection for London mayor by a huge margin ā as big as his margin 3 years ago. A lot of Tories were predicting he was going to lose based on ULEZ backlash alone. ULEZ really is not that unpopular, despite the loudest voices online telling you otherwise.
The Internet is best at being a megaphone for vocal minorities, often with unpopular opinions
gee, it's almost like people appreciate clean air or something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think when it comes to cities, a lot of the people who actually live there do not like how much traffic there is. Any policy that's aimed at reducing traffic gets a lot of welcome from the locals. The people most impacted by a lot of these policies are the people who live outside the city who also don't want to make use of public transportation. NYC was also supposed to introduce a new toll aimed at traffic in the city, which the governor blocked, and she's been facing protests over that decision
Electric vehicle drivers also depend on road maintenance, which the tax base supports.
Our annual registration that ranges from $200-700 is supposed to do that. Along with the multiple gas taxes, which are obviously less revenue than before, but still a massive amount of money, I'm sure. Idk if you've been to California, but out roads fucking suck. They've been shit since I started driving, and I'm sure they were shit before, too.
This is largely happening everywhere. Politicians had easy wins for decades expanding road infrastructure, knowing they wouldnāt be around when future politicians and citizens were stuck figuring out how to maintain it. Taxes suck but roads donāt grow on trees. Nobody wants to get behind driving less, so you have to either pay more or accept worse roads. This isnāt a political issue or even an environmental one. We have over invested in roads. Like someone who bought too much house and now canāt afford the upkeep on all of it.
Millions of people are behind driving less, but governments (in bed with oil and manufacturing corporations) arenāt behind upgrading public transport.
Semi trucks and other heavy vehicles do the damage to the roads. Companies that require the use of lots of semi trucks should pay a much higher tax that goes to road maintenance seeing as they are the primary ones doing the damage.
Not sure how you think the roads in California suck. Iāve driven in most states, and I donāt think there are any other states with even close to the amount of traffic that maintain their roads as well as California. You can drive all day on 40 to 70 year old freeways and never see a single pothole. And the roads are basically never closed down during daytime hours. They some lanes and repave overnight and have it back open for morning rush hour. For people who think cali roads are bad, I invite you to drive anywhere east of the Mississippi River and report back. The Pennsylvania turnpike has had major maintenance going on since circa 1890 and it still is somehow in disrepair in places.
For realā¦ CA roads are objectively well maintained compared to damn near every other part of the country.
Haha I felt the same reading that, California has some of the nicest roads in the country. Try going to New Mexico haha
Heās a republican. Who lives in the outskirts of San Diego and their roads suck in Poway and East County because of their local republican districts.
> less revenue than before Pretty much answered your own question. Registration doesn't really matter, since that's applied equally to EV and non-EV. Lost revenue from gas tax needs to be made up by the drivers who are no longer paying into it, but still using the road.
That true, but the amount of gas tax used to correlate (roughly) with the amount of road usage. Which again correlates to the amount of maintenance needed on the roads. With more EV's on the road the road usage stays the same, hence the maintenance need stay the same. But the revenue from gas tax for said maintenance goes down. Do you see the issue now?
Also, EV cars inherently weigh more than most other gas cars. Thus technically causing more wear on tear on roads per mile vs. a gasser
Trucks cause more wear and tear on roads than cars but they pay the same price for fuel and stuff. If the amount of wear and tear is the issue, we need to have a talk about truck and full-size SUV owners.
london has great public transport unlike california though, so the idea is that encourages use of public transport to keep down emissions
Why? Roads still need to be paid for.
You were being downvoted because unlike america, Europe, especially capitals have very extensive public transport system yet people still chose to be a bunch of lazy cunts and get their personal cars to go anywhere. In Europe is totally doable to live without a car, even when traveling between cities so taxing people to get their lazy asses to public transport is a very nice thing. I wish we had that too in my country
Every state will go through this reckoning. They pay for road repair and maintenance through gas tax. Nobody decades ago expected gas demand to crater and for cars to still need roads at the same time. This is a lot like people who go to southern states because there's no sales tax or income tax. People don't love service cuts, so the states make up that cost through property tax, car tax, business tax, license fees, etc. You're paying for those services in some other way, or you're not getting them.
It is, but 95% of cars driven in London are "green enough". Only 2.9% of vehicles entering the ULEZ zone actually pay the fee.
Seems reasonable? Not gonna hurt most everyday people but hopefully curtails the worst offenders. That could make a difference
the worst offenders cause the bulk of the problem. pareto principle basicallyĀ
It _does_ make a big difference.
Not "green enough". The goal isn't to help the environment, it's to improve air quality so people don't have to breath shitty air if they live by a road. The emissions standards are based on particulates and other unwanted gases emitted by the engine being under certain levels.
Worth adding rhat Khan was told to expand ULEZ by the central government, otherwise they wouldn't provide funding for TFL. Since TFL is essential to any kind of order in London, but does not make a profit (nor should it be forced to try) ULEZ got expanded.
Considering the amount of business TFL enables in the capital, it may not make a direct profit, but things would be a lot worse off without it.
He was told to expand it, then the Tories went on a nationwide campaign telling the public how awful he was for expanding it.
So these "blade runners" are entitled men who believe they have a right to drive dirty cars? Or what is their argument?
Idk shit about london/UK or these zones, but yes it sounds exactly like you said. In germany we have zones in our cities you can't drive into with old/dirty cars and every car got a grren/yellow or red sticker. Only greensticker cars are allowed to drive in these zones. We have that for years now.
Did it help with the air quality?
The air pollution dropped around 5 percent from 2008 to 2014. The interesting part isn't the low drop, but the particles in the pollution itself changed. The smallest and most dangerous particles dropped 50%, carcinogenic soot particles dropped 60% and the ultrafine particles dropped 70%. So in the end I would say it's not perfect and not the single best solution for our problems, but it's a part of it.
Dang never heard of that. Super interestingĀ
France too.
>Blade Runners? That is not what a blade runner does, they need to kill androids who refuse to stay off world.
Not androids.... Replicants.
Realized how pedantic that sounded. Meant it with a nerd fellowship grin.
"Do **Androids** Dream of Electric Sheep" š
to be fair the term blade runners dosen't come from that book
Is it still sex if it is with a Replicant? -B. Clinton
āI did not have sexual relations with that Repli-cuntā
"uhm akchtuly š¤"
Not kill.. Retire.
And they don't kill replicants, they "retire" them
Do you like our owl?
What are the emission standards and does the average car from 10 years ago meet those standards?
You need at least a euro 4 petrol or euro 6 diesel. Most petrol cars made after 2006 are euro 4 and most diesel cars made after 2015 are euro 6.
Or a registered classic over 40 years old
So if I have a car that between 1984 and 2006 Iām screwed?
Varies. There are cars from that period that pass.
After 2006 for petrol, 2015 for diesel, so yes, it's rare to see something that doesn't meet the standards.
A car from 2015 is not even that old
It did sting somewhat when I replaced my van, but it needed doing at some point. Most cars are petrol. When they first came up with the idea diesel needed to be 3 years old and that was going to hurt, but this is not a new story.
Reminds me of someone who said thermite would be a simple solution to the speed cameras we got back then..
I doubt termites could bite through metal like that.
Got me :) Thermite..
Did you mean thermite?
Blade runners?
Anti-Ulez vigilantes are known as āblade runnersā
Context would've been nice for people not from London.
Exactly. And what does ulez mean?
Ultra Low Emmission Zone https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone
What's a "London"?
Some dinky town on a random island nobody cares about
Or 'cunts'
LOL, in their heads maybe. To the rrst of us they're known as pathetic cunts.
Cringe
Itās a long winded way of saying ācuntsā
How about carbon tracking camera at private jets?
ULEZ isn't about carbon, it's about local particulate pollution.
ULEZ is about air quality within high density areas though. Not about GHG emissions. And I doubt the mayor of London can do anything when it comes to national/international flights.
How about both?
Whilst I agree, its not a green policy, it's a health one, it's to improve air quality in London to reduce the negative affects like cancer
It's not one or the other, it's both. Green policies are health policies.
Absolutely it's like that meme of a guy giving a presentation highlighting all the social and health benefits of green policies and then some random audience members shouting out 'but what if climate change is all a hoax'. So what if it is (it's not) we can still want the social and health benefits from these green policies and if they help the environment along the way well that's just an extra bonus.
Now THIS i can get behind!
Both We can do both
Both actually.
Private jets are bad, but they are not the ones responsible for polluting the lungs of Londoners.
Those don't really pollute London's air, so while it's a good idea that lowers the effects of climate change, it won't help with London's air quality.
He just took out the traffic lights as well, giving fuā¬k-all for anyone getting into a traffic accident as a direct result.
Yeah - nobody claimed these cunts were intelligent whatsoever.
why does this ridiculous level of environmental responsibility and enforcement always fall on regular citizens yet the ultra rich and corporations are damn near allowed to do whatever they want!?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My old neighbourhood in Lewisham, the air quality was so bad it was equivalent to smoking approx 150 cigarettes a year.
The people cutting these down are absolute pieces of shit. Exposure to air pollution increases the risk of premature mortality from heart disease, stroke and lung cancer and is responsible for millions of deaths globally, every year.
Doesn't London have the most cctv cameras per square foot of any city in the world? You'd think they could follow these people all the way back to wherever they came from.
That stat was always because anywhere that serves alcohol had to have a certain amount of cctv cameras. Its not like the police or government had constant surveillance.
Nah, that was just an insurance thing. Buying a Ā£20 CCTV camera off of Amazon saved businesses thousands a year in insurance costs so obviously they started installing them. End result is "most CCTV cameras per square foot" but they're all shitty 240p cameras hooked up to a broken VHS recorder from the 80s they got at a car boot sale. It's practically impossible to track somebody when you have to manually request (possibly with a court signed warrant) every single recording to do it.
I wish the people that live in my home country, India, cared about air pollution as you do, we have air quality that is 8 times worse than the UK, which could potentially shave 5 years off your life span and literally nobody gives a shit
Well, what do you think the main cause of the poor air quality in London is?
This only impacts cars older than 2004 for the most part. Itās less than 3% of cars and most of those are commercial vans and trucks. Itās really incentivizing companies to upgrade their old automobiles. The people who are claiming this is impacting poor people driving old cars are way off base. How many low income folks are commuting to central London in 20 year old cars? The answer is not many if any at all. Parking is too expensive. They take the train or bus.
That's some pretty important context to know before forming an opinion. I had just assumed all gas cars would be fined to encourage EVs.
Nope, just gasoline cars older than 2004 and diesel cars older than.. 2014 or 2016 I forget which. Something like only 3% of all cars in the area have to pay the fine. It's also more about air pollution than about climate change. That's why diesel cars have to be much newer, they spew out a lot more particulate matter which harms peoples health.
This is more an air quality thing rather than a climate change thing
People live in cities, lots of people live in cities, lots of people drive cars, dirty polluting cars, this just states that the most polluting of cars have to park at a park and ride outside of that part of the city, and travel in an alternate way. The zones are usually only about a 20 minute walk in total. Everyday there are more people in a city than the day that came before it. That means more pollution. Asking people that drive the worst offenders to park outside of a city, or neighborhood, and travel in using public transportation is incredibly sensible, and has been done all over the world.
You don't ask them question
Are you saying if a 1989 Lamborghini drove past it, it wouldnāt be charged?
Nearly, a 1983 Lambo wouldn't be charged, an '89 would, an '05 would, an '06 wouldn't. Assuming they met Euro 4 at the same point as anyone else rather than earlier. Registered classics over 40 years old are exempt.
I agree with you that the ultra rich and corporations are affected by most environmental measures way less than regular people, and that that's wrong. But in this particular case the measure is intended to improve the air quality directly in the city. I'm fairly certain that private motor vehicles contribute most to the worse air pollution in a city center compared to the average level of pollution. (I have not researched this though, If someone has evidence supporting the opposite, please enlighten me)
Do you remember when London had smog so bad back in the 1800ās that people were dying? Rich and corporations are adding to greenhouse gases, but itās everyone living in London that is contributing to their own air pollution. This issue is actually on every one living in London and not some rich heiress flying miles over London
Pollution in London kills poor people. The vast vast majority of private vehicles passing through London are compliant. ITS LONDON. You donāt really need to drive, stop thinking about this through your idea of public transport where you live.
Blade runners is way to cool a name for these people
Spoiler alert: The only people who call them that are themselves.
I don't really have any sympathy for them. This is the same area as the congestion charge and public transit is really damn good in London. The vast majority of londoners don't have cars and these older cars are just causing more noise and air pollution in people's neighborhoods. If they don't like it leave or vote. If you want to fight the surveillance state this also ain't it bud.
Irony being if you go on many of these Facebook groups where people are celebrating these āblade runnersā, a large contingent of them donāt even live in London. Meanwhile donāt mind us actually down here, weāll just continue to breathe our shit air where it doesnāt impact them in the slightest. ULEZ and LEZ (the earlier scheme with a smaller area) have made a noticeable difference.
lotta work to do in order to try to keep your air unhealthy, but ok
They live in dumb little echo chambers where they think they are saving London from the tyranny of Mayor Khan. They donāt give a fuck about air quality, or the fact that they are putting people in danger with their vandalism.
Breaking news. They work for the company that puts those up.
r/Angryupvote
Do you realize all that destruction is going to be repaired again, every pound and penny from citizen taxes. It's pointless
Unfortunately these plonkers donāt. Or they just donāt care.
What are these things exactly and how is it supposed to work?
This is a crime that others will replicant after they see it
I think these guys are already copying. The government tried installing security cameras on council estates in Salford about ten years ago. Literally cameras that can zoom into your living room. The locals got out the chainsaws.
This is probably one of the most transit accessible areas on earth, there are many other options besides driving. Why so much butthurt? Do drivers really feel like every public space has to cater to their personal transit choice?
Seems kind of like they are just destroying traffic signals.
Couldnāt they just boost another person and take the camera out instead of the entire fucking traffic light.. now thereās a chance someone getting T Boned
This is Uxbridge/Cowley drive through this junction all the time. If they aren't covered in paint they are cut down. Lagest group I've heard have issue with expansion of the zone is people with work vans. It's why they seem to be well equipped to destroy and disrupt. If you make a man with power tools spend so much then wouldn't you know it they will use those tools. Maybe need to make the men with briefcases spend a bit more.
Crack the skulls of these thugs.
Fine, we'll just start flipping some cars and blocking roads then, if vandalism is allowed now. It worked before in the Netherlands to pass meaningful change. No reason to assume it won't work in London.
they are destroying what they already paid for in taxes...you showed them
How big is the fine for private jets?
If a privage jet were to drive through an ULEZ, they would get a massive fine.
ULEZ is about reducing local particulate pollution, it has nothing to with carbon emissions or global warming.
Private jets ride in central london?
Do jets normally fly through the middle of roads where you live? No? Well, this camera is supposed to reduce local particulate counts, not ghg emissions, so your question is stupid either way
There is no jets in this video. "Just stop oil' has nothing to do with this video of a camera being cut down.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How is the public transport situation there?
Excellent. Source: I live in Feltham.
You poor thing. I grew up in Feltham and you couldnāt pay me to go back.
I'm not a fan of this or anything, don't get me wrong, but couldn't they take the excellent and world-renowned public transit in London...?
no it hasnāt, stop lying. Public transport in London is amazing, low cost and very regular, therefore they could easily hop onto a bus with one of those granny grocery trolleys and get their groceries so no their ability to do that hasnāt been taking away. You are just entitled lazy people who think the whole city revolves around you. Old people are also a danger on the road and shouldnāt be driving.
On the flip side my neighbour is old and a complete liability in his car (think that episode of South Park) and now gets taxiās everywhere. So not only is the air a little cleaner but everyone is a little safer.
Yay cut them down so I can pay more tax to put them back up again so you can cut them down so I pay more tax- you get the idea. I don't want to outright brand them as vandals because the idea itself is flawed but I feel like they're shooting themselves in the foot somewhat.
1 year later theyāre crying about how their council tax is going up again to pay for the damage.
Funny isn't it how people get into screaming piss fits online when JSO lob a bit of orange cornflour over some rocks but they're perfectly happy when idiots with angle grinders more or less burn unfathomable amounts of public money cutting down these cameras. I'm sure this comment will get downvoted all to hell, but every downvote is just an admission of the hypocrisy involved.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Poor people don't drive cars in London.
Yes a tax on poor people. Poor people famously can afford to pay several thousands of pounds to buy a car, and then can also afford the thousands of pounds spent a year to maintain that car. Actual poor people just walk, bike, or take public transit since itās almost infinitely cheaper