ULEZ (London)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by derek vivian

Anyway, it is only in the last 20 years or so that there has been any concern about pollution so it must be newer vehicles who have caused the problem!

You're right, it's all the diseasels! They're the ones that spew the most filth out of their exhausts, carcinogenic microparticles that at the very least, cause breathing difficultites and at the worst, promote the growth of cancer cells in the body. Not to mention the fact they stink worse than most of the worst smells i've ever encountered in my life!

Another bad EU-influenced decision on the part of our government, we already had lean-burn petrol engines that met the required emissions without even needing a cat but the French and Germans couldn't make a petrol engine at the time to meet the emissions without the need for a 3-way cat, both countries had government subsidised car manufacturers at the time so it was in their governments interests to be able to sell as many cars as possible. As diesels weren't widely known for being toxic back in 1984 when this all happened, they convinced our government (despite a panel of advisors telling our government it was a bad idea) that diseaesels were the "green" way forward. That or 3-way catalytic converters on petrol engines that pump out H2S (Hydrogen sulphide) gas that itself is highly toxic, not to mention it smells of rotten eggs!

[bob12]

The results from the individual enquires made above on the TfL website seem to fly in the face of TfL's own advice regarding 'Historic Cars'. At least as I read it!! https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ult...and-exemptions

Quote

Historic vehicles

You can apply to stop paying vehicle tax if your vehicle was built more than 40 years ago. This date moves forward on a 40-year rolling system. Assuming the rules stay the same, when the ULEZ launches in April 2019, vehicles built before 1979 will be eligible to apply for historic vehicle tax class.

All vehicles that have a historic vehicle tax class will be exempt from the ULEZ. This tax class excludes any vehicle used commercially (for example, coffee vans or street food vans).

In line with the existing LEZ discount all vehicles registered before 1 January 1973 will be exempt from the ULEZ, regardless of commercial use or otherwise.

If your vehicle meets the above criteria and is registered in the UK, it is automatically exempt and you don't need to register with us. If your vehicle meets the above criteria but is registered outside the UK, you are also exempt, but will need to register with us. Details on how you can register will be available closer to the time.

Unquote.

You need to contact TfL direct!!

Bob

[kelvinp]

Originally Posted by Triple-S

As my Volvo 164 and Volvo 145 are both tax-exempt (both pre 1972) I put my registrations into the appropriate site - and both would be liable to the ULEZ. Now I thought both were exempt, but apparently not, so I too would have to investigate further before I go into town.

P

Originally Posted by derek vivian

I have just been on the TFL web site and entered the MG's registration and it seems it is not exempt from the ULEZ charge which is really the only one I was concerned about. I was offered to start an account called London Road User Charging a/c and would need various documents to prove the MG meets or is better that the TFL levels for emissions. This includes a statement in document form from the manufacturer! So I gave up at that point. The whole system of ULEZ is ridiculous in my opinion and needs to be exposed as such by the various classic car clubs at least. Those with older cars are not likely to drive around in London or any other City/Town in the UK every day are they? Anyway, it is only in the last 20 years or so that there has been any concern about pollution so it must be newer vehicles who have caused the problem!

If they are over 40 years old then they will be MOT exempt, so should be both LEZ and ULEZ exempt. Might be work checking the taxation class on your V5?

[Triple-S]

Yes, Kelvin but my cars are both registered as Historic, therefore not needing MoTs and taxing BUT acc. to the ulez site THEY MUST PAY IF ENTERING THE ZONE.

Make of that what you will: seems to me the ulez rule-makers can't even dictate the correct facts to their typists. Must be politicians!

P

[SignumGB]

Looked up ULEZ, Euro 6 Diesel no charge. For those who have to pay, I dont know how they will be able to afford it.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by SignumGB

Looked up ULEZ, Euro 6 Diesel no charge. For those who have to pay, I dont know how they will be able to afford it.

I think that's the idea - force those that can't afford to sell their cars and rely on pubic transpot, not that public transport is that reliable!

That way when most people have got rid of their cars, they can claim a victory for reducing emissions.

Just a load of political cowshed confetti really

[dingov70]

[QUOTE=Laird Scooby;2511435]Would that by any chance be for a USA spec Ford pick-up Bob? If so, they're exempt from emissions testing, even in the USA because they are regarded as a "tool". I believe this is even the case in California (home of the emissions killing kit on most cars) and as far as i know, any USA spec pick-up only has to pass the basic "no visible emissions" test for our MoT - not even the basic emissions test (3.5%CO, <=1200ppm HC) is thrown at them!

Nominated tester stepping in here , we test emissions based on year of vehicle initially , unless presenter tells us hengine is from year xxxx WIThH supporting evidence & not just a letter from his oppo in the pub .

https://www.mot-testing.service.gov....ml#section_8.2

Having lots of fun failing decat /PDF deleted / missing Lambda sensor / deleted EGR valve & the wailing that ensues

[Laird Scooby]

[QUOTE=dingov70;2512505]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Would that by any chance be for a USA spec Ford pick-up Bob? If so, they're exempt from emissions testing, even in the USA because they are regarded as a "tool". I believe this is even the case in California (home of the emissions killing kit on most cars) and as far as i know, any USA spec pick-up only has to pass the basic "no visible emissions" test for our MoT - not even the basic emissions test (3.5%CO, <=1200ppm HC) is thrown at them!

Nominated tester stepping in here , we test emissions based on year of vehicle initially , unless presenter tells us hengine is from year xxxx WIThH supporting evidence & not just a letter from his oppo in the pub .

https://www.mot-testing.service.gov....ml#section_8.2

Having lots of fun failing decat /PDF deleted / missing Lambda sensor / deleted EGR valve & the wailing that ensues

Well now i have conflicting testimony from two MoT testers, one of whom tests a considerable number of USA spec vehicles (cars and pick-up trucks) every year and i don't know about your customer base.

Useful link to that section, thanks! Saves me hunting for it later! In Section 8.2.1.2, there is a part about vehicles exempt from emissions from new :

Vehicles exempt from emission limits

Some vehicles may never have been able to meet the MOT limits for CO or HC emissions.

If what i'm told by my MoT tester is correct, that in the USA pick-ups are exempt from emissions as they are a "tool" (and corroborated by several Americans) then that would bear out my original statement.

However, it's all a bit academic as it turns out the vehicle in question that Bob found by accident is in fact a 1990 Ford Granada GL that doesn't appear to have been taxed, tested or insured for 15-20 years so would suggest it was scrapped before Continuous Registration kicked in in 2001 or thereabouts. Quite possibly it was a victim of the horrendous "Scrappage Scheme" and as such, may not have an emissions criteria assigned to it on the DVLA/VOSA/DVSA database.

It's all a very grey area!

[TurnipSpeed]

On the subject of polluting vehicles( buses), it makes me laugh when sites give bus emissions as c. 90gm/km, on the strength of how many passengers( who would otherwise be driving diesel cars?) they supposedly carry on average, while the actual emissions are more like 900gm/km.
Fake news, anyone?

[ericbeaumont]

I live in Hackney and rely on my '97 940 for work as a beefarmer, out as far as Dagenham, Chigwell and Epping. The load it can carry is essential. I have, or am involved in managing, about 200 colonies at about eight sites.

The ULEZ will end my use of a car that is not even halfway through its working life (189k) and though a little ragged at the edges, still carries a load at 90 all day. As I have apiaries and sell honey at markets both inside and outside the North Circ the ULEZ will disrupt my business considerably and permanently. I have no real interest (or funds!) to buy a used Toyota Hilux (a favourite with beefarmers) and rely on this section of Bob's post (would like to italicise this part but no button available):

You can apply to stop paying vehicle tax if your vehicle was built more than 40 years ago. This date moves forward on a 40-year rolling system. Assuming the rules stay the same, when the ULEZ launches in April 2019, vehicles built before 1979 will be eligible to apply for historic vehicle tax class.

All vehicles that have a historic vehicle tax class will be exempt from the ULEZ.

If this is correct, I am looking at a pre-80 Land Rover Series 109 and will put up with the lack of speed and comfort (but will have 4WD fun) or drive the 940 and re-locate from London permanently (what joy!). However, the refusal of the TfL system to recognise the exemption of Derek's MG puts a cat among the pigeon of my strategy. My thoughts are that as the rolling exemption rule is so clear that error may lie in the system.

Of course, I could just pay the ULEZ every day and deduct it as a business expense...

My feeling is that although air toxicity is a significant health issue, the Mayor (an asthma sufferer) has pushed the ULEZ as a legacy of his term in office. That the plan is unlikely to solve the problem will not make the headlines. What is the main issue? Volume of vehicles would be my guess, and commuters the culprit. To see the queues of traffic in the morning and evening is staggering: four miles of cars waiting to enter the Blackwall Tunnel; green Broxbourne in Hertfordshire is in the top ten polluted areas in the UK. Why? It sits on the A10, bringing commuter traffic to the city.

Of course, the Mayor would have a harder job to change the way business works, to change worker habits, or to persuade the Government to invest in and subsidise public transport. Easier to invest in a simple headline plan that gives the impression of solving a complex problem, and in the process causing small businesses no end of expensive trouble.