Another Petition Against the Government

[Roadkill]

You're blurring two issues, free spirit - as Oswaldtwistle points out.

No-one is asking for the repeal of anything, certainly not the LEZ as a whole. What people are saying is that proposals to apply LEZ-style controls to older cars aren't a good thing because a) they'd come down very hard on those who run classic cars as a hobby and usually drive them only occasionally in any case, and more importantly b) it would effectively debar people on low incomes from owning a car at all - no matter how much they might want or need one. But yes, some of us did sign the petition without looking closely enough at the facts first.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

a) classic cars are not exempt from the congestion charge
b)the LEZ as it stands doesn't affect cars- classic or otherwise.

i wonder how it will affect things like the engine sized LEZ for 4x4 and similar most vintage are large engined by design 3 litres and above is not uncommon, woudl they be stuck with a £25 charge or the standard one ?

having just checked their online checker and their info it says that vechiles under 1.25 ton are exempt however when i used the make and reg of the b it came back as not a desiel so it was fine apperntly... though it weights 2.5 ton and is a 3 litre....

city dreams what would be your take on it?

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Good question, but again, we are getting two things confused. The £25 charge is Emissions influenced charging. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the LEZ-Low Emissions Zone. TfL have confused everyone by launching two things at once.

Emissions Influenced Charging only affects the Congestion Charge Zone, and only applies during Congestion Charge hours (7-6 weekdays) in the central charge zone. It affects pre 2001 cars over 3 litres and more recent cars with CO2 emissions over 225 g/km. Weight has nothing to do with it. Nor for that matter has 4 wheel drive.

As far as historic vehicles are concerned http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/report-to-mayor-chapters-and-appendices.pdf and turn to page 175.

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs noted that the Variation Order as drafted would not include historic vehicles with engine sizes of 3,001 cc and above within the scope of the higher charge. This is because the Variation Order refers to cars type approved before 2001 and with engine sizes of 3,001 cc and above being liable to the higher charge, whereas type approval was only introduced in the mid 1970s. Nevertheless, it is noted that the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Variation Order indicated that this concession was not intentional. The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs felt that without recognising historic vehicles as a special category, owners of historic vehicles liable to the higher charge who happen to live within the zone would suffer an unfair penalty, which would be tantamount to placing a tax on their hobby. The RAC Foundation was concerned that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on classic cars.

TfL Response

J5.2 TfL accepts that the Variation Order would exclude historic vehicles with engine capacities of 3,001 cc and above from the higher charge. This was an unintended consequence of the proposals, as TfL considers that such vehicles emit similar levels of CO2 to other vehicles with engine capacities of 3,001 cc and above and should therefore be within the scope of the proposals. J5.3 Given that Congestion Charging only applies on weekdays between the hours of 7am and 6pm, TfL does not consider that the proposed emissions related congestion charges would have a significant impact on the occasional use of historic vehicles. Less than 0.1 per cent of cars using the Congestion Charging zone are registered with the DVLA before 1973 and have an engine capacity of 3,001 cc and above. J5.4 Should the Mayor confirm the Variation Order, TfL would subsequently be likely to make an appropriate Variation Order that would set out proposals to include historic vehicles within the scope of the higher charge. This would include stakeholder discussions with organisations including the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs. Any such Variation Order would be subject to consultation before it could be confirmed by the Mayor.

Attempting to translate, it looks like TfL are going to try and charge £25, even though as it stands they won't be included as there is a problem proving the cubic capacity of the engine.

 

[Griff]

petrolhead posse.

Maybe a bit of an over-reaction on my part on the opening post after a fair bit of wine admittedly.

 

[Cobbles]

there is no u turn to be made - it's bullshit propaganda to wind up the car nuts so they can all moan about the environmentalists wanting to take away their classic cars etc.

hold on, let's see if it get's through to people if I write it bigger.

THIS PETITION IS BASED ON A LIE

Who cares so long as the Governement ignores the tiny (but shrill) minority of eco-twats and keeps bending over to cater for the vast number of motorists whose votes and taxes actually count for something.

 

[Isambard]

Who cares so long as the Governement ignores the tiny (but shrill) minority of eco-twats

The restriction of emissions and the resulting bans on the heaviest polluting vehicles is an EU wide thing that is designed to reduce unhealthy particulates and applies in many major European cities. The notion that the UK government is just listening to "eco-twats" is laughable.

 

[Cobbles]

...an EU wide thing that is designed to reduce unhealthy particulates and applies in many major European cities...

Hurrah! - that'll mean a total ban on buses in city centres!

 

[Isambard]

Hurrah! - that'll mean a total ban on buses in city centres!

I'm not sure what buses are still operating in inner Edinburgh but the level of particulates being put out by buses in general has been cut dramticly by the introduction of new vehicles ofer the last 2 decades.

Perhaps Edinburgh needs new buses faster and a speed up on the light rail system.

 

[co-op]

Who cares so long as the Governement ignores the tiny (but shrill) minority of eco-twats and keeps bending over to cater for the vast number of motorists whose votes and taxes actually count for something.

Aaah. Savour the toryism. I live in a city so I don't usually get the authentic whiff of suburban sanctimony. Reminds me why I hold my nose and vote for whoever will keep you lot out.

 

[Cobbles]

I'm not sure what buses are still operating in inner Edinburgh but the level of particulates being put out by buses in general has been cut dramticly by the introduction of new vehicles ofer the last 2 decades.

Perhaps Edinburgh needs new buses faster and a speed up on the light rail system.

According to the Council's own figures, NO2 levels have climbed significantly - but only in the Car-exclusion zones.

Emissions are set to rise exponentially thanks to the road closures necessitated by the pointless fiasco-tram build (a mere replacement for the No. 22 bus - a bargain at £600M). Hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 will be generated by the contractors vehicles as well as the factories churning out steel and concrete. When it finally dribbles off the start line, it'll take it a century or so to claw back the carbon overdraft that its building will have generated - still, that's green logic for you. The tram just might reduce private vehicle road journeys by up to 5% (stand on the tram vs. sit in the car - what an incentive) but the up front nvironmental cost doesn't count - still, it keeps a pile of cardy clad dandruff crusted traffic planning graduates off the dole.

 

[Cobbles]

I live in a city

So do I - it was Edinburgh's city dwellers who told the Cooncil eco-buffoons to get knotted when their congestion charging plan was stuffed 3 to 1 in a vote with a high turnout.

If Commuters around the city had been given an opportunity to vote, no doubt the duffing would have been about 9 to 1.........

 

[teuchter]

According to the Council's own figures, NO2 levels have climbed significantly - but only in the Car-exclusion zones.

Emissions are set to rise exponentially thanks to the road closures necessitated by the pointless fiasco-tram build (a mere replacement for the No. 22 bus - a bargain at £600M). Hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 will be generated by the contractors vehicles as well as the factories churning out steel and concrete. When it finally dribbles off the start line, it'll take it a century or so to claw back the carbon overdraft that its building will have generated - still, that's green logic for you. The tram just might reduce private vehicle road journeys by up to 5% (stand on the tram vs. sit in the car - what an incentive) but the up front nvironmental cost doesn't count - still, it keeps a pile of cardy clad dandruff crusted traffic planning graduates off the dole.

I don't know anything about the details of the schemes in Edinburgh you mention.

But seeing as you consistently post up factually incorrect nonsense here on other things I do know a bit about, somehow I'm not inclined to take much of what you say above (none of which is backed up by any link to the source of your figures) very seriously.

Boy who cried wolf and all that.

 

[Cobbles]

I don't know anything about the details of the schemes in Edinburgh you mention.

It's all in the public domain - you could Google it or do some real research if you prefer - it was an FOI request to TIE (the tram quango) that revealed that they didn't feel that it was necessary to carry out any investigation of the environmental impact that would result from building the tram system.

I did raise this with a couple of MSP's at the time and I think that it did come up in committee but was buried as Labour were in power then and they didn't want to upset their Cooncil chums (most of whom have since been kicked out).

 

[teuchter]

It's all in the public domain - you could Google it or do some real research if you prefer - it was an FOI request to TIE (the tram quango) that revealed that they didn't feel that it was necessary to carry out any investigation of the environmental impact that would result from building the tram system.

I did raise this with a couple of MSP's at the time and I think that it did come up in committee but was buried as Labour were in power then and they didn't want to upset their Cooncil chums (most of whom have since been kicked out).

A brief look on Google doesn't reveal much. Anyway it's you who's making the claims, so it would seem reasonable to suggest that it is you who should be taking the time to back them up with some evidence. Like I say, most stuff you write on here is highly unreliable so I'm disinclined to expend much effort trying to dig up information that probably doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[free spirit]

Nonsense. Total nonsense. The LEZ and the congestion charge are two **totally** different things. This is what you need to know to avoid a penalty.

In short

a) classic cars are not exempt from the congestion charge
b)the LEZ as it stands doesn't affect cars- classic or otherwise.

ah - actually it seems you're right on the non-exemption of classic cars from the congestion charge, I'd got mixed up on the exemptions list for the LEZ and the congestion charge - my mistake sorry.

btw, I was well aware they were 2 totally different things, as I made clear in my post, I just mixed up the exemptions bit.

thinking about it though, you're kinda reinforcing my point about LEZ's generally having fuck all to do with cars at all, never mind classic cars, so do you agree the petition is scaremongering bollocks, or is there some other EU scheme that I've missed that the petitions about (in which case it'd be good if someone could point out what the scheme is and provide a link to it).

 

[free spirit]

LEZ- Low Emissions Zone. Much higher daily charge of £200. Only affects trucks over 3.5 tonnes and buses made before 2002. From 2010 it will include vans and motorcaravans. Important bit is that this is a 24/7 charge across all of greater London (area is very roughly everywhere inside the M25)- a much bigger area. This is important for anyone with a van to know because penalty charges are up to £1000!!

hmm... thinking about it the fines and charges do seem extremely steep, and I can see a lot of people getting caught out by this when it get's introduced (for vans and campervans / mobile homes), particularly travellers & people who're too skint to be able to afford to get the work done to bring their vehicle upto the emissions standard needed to avoid paying the charge.

I'm still in favour of the concept, but think that maybe the money raised (or a proportion of it) should be put into a fund to help skint people / small businesses etc pay to have the work done so their vehicle can meet the requirements. I'd also think that people should be sent a written warning the first time, not just fined straight away or something like that. Or maybe if you can show that you've had the work done to bring the vehicle upto standard since being issued with the charge/fine, then you get let off the fine.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

thinking about it though, you're kinda reinforcing my point about LEZ's generally having fuck all to do with cars at all.

The LEZs in Germany do include cars.

 

[Isambard]

Yep, all cars have to get one of these to enter the centre of cities in Germany.

Transit of lorries through cities is increasing and and free on street parking erradicated as well.

 

[moose]

So here's the government's response:

'Thank you for taking the time to register your views about classic cars on the Downing Street website.

There is currently no proposal either at EU or domestic level to ban cars over a certain age.

Clearly, vehicle emissions are a concern not just from a local air quality perspective but, increasingly, due to their contribution to climate change. Therefore, the European Commission has proposed setting CO2 targets for car manufacturers, but these would only affect new cars. Also, the targets would be based on averages rather than enforced limits or bans.

There is also no EU or UK policy to provide incentives for scrapping old vehicles. A programme of incentives to phase out the most polluting vehicles was considered as part of the national Air Quality Strategy Review (June 2007). Two scenarios were modelled: the first considered incentives for the scrapping of all cars that were not compliant with the Euro 1 standard, while the second considered Euro 1 standard cars as well as all the pre-Euro cars. This analysis suggested that both scenarios would result in a large net cost to society and represented poor value for money, mainly due to the high cost of useful resources being destroyed (i.e. roadworthy cars being scrapped). This could also involve negative environmental effects, as the petition outlines. As a result, the Air Quality Strategy classified this measure as 'no longer under immediate consideration', which remains true today.

Local authorities are able to develop, implement and manage their own local air quality management schemes, allowing them to focus measures on priorities in their area. The Low Emission Zone (LEZ) operating in London is a prominent example. It currently applies to lorries over 12 tonnes, but will eventually apply to lighter vehicles such as large vans. However, cars, motorcycles and small vans (below 1.205 tonnes in unladen weight) are not affected. For the vehicles that are included, there is an exemption for 'historic vehicles' built before 1st January 1973.'

 

[starfish2000]

I dont drive, but I just moved house cos Arriva can't run an efficient bus service in Derby so I walk to work now and so I ve every sympathy for car drivers, your being taxed to death while nothing serious has been done about bus services outside of London. The environmental lobby never talks about it with any real purpose so I'm just cynical of the whole thing.

I'm starting driving lessons this year then I'm gonna by a 4 x 4 cos the current situation is just a sick fucking joke

 

[teuchter]

The environmental lobby are constantly pushing for better public transport services.

 

[free spirit]

I dont drive, but I just moved house cos Arriva can't run an efficient bus service in Derby so I walk to work now and so I ve every sympathy for car drivers, your being taxed to death while nothing serious has been done about bus services outside of London. The environmental lobby never talks about it with any real purpose so I'm just cynical of the whole thing.

I'm starting driving lessons this year then I'm gonna by a 4 x 4 cos the current situation is just a sick fucking joke

sorry, what?

we may not have been very successful in getting our message translated into real world action on public transport across the country, but it's not for want of trying.

of course it doesn't help when the government does something fucking stupid like issueing free bus passes to oaps without costing it out, thereby leaving PTA's / Councils with huge bills to pay that have to come from their existing budgets for public transport subsidies, thereby meaning cuts in unprofitable routes etc.

don't like it, vote green - why not give it a try eh.

 

[moose]

Yeah, like most local elections have a green candidate