Don't start banging on about your beloved congestion charge again, we're not talking about that, Ken's latest scheme is the LEZ which while quite possibly a good idea, is marred by his goose-stepping attitude meaning well over £100 per day fines for violating it, no meaningful appeals process and them making it as easy as possible to accidentally violate.
A good idea coupled to an over-zealous penalty system with a real mean streak is what makes it a bad thing, other countries have similar schemes without Ken's brutality. I know you're a real Ken lover but the man is an example of what local government should not be.
And how does it do that? From the article you get fined if enter the zone without a sticker, simple. But get a (cheap) sticker and you can, how is that going reduce the number of vehicles entering entering the zone?
Not true, from my experience of sitting in jams behind buses etc, public service vehicles are exempt from all forms of pollution control. Cough, cough...
It stops the ones without a sticker keeping the areas emissions down, as you can't get a sticker if your car doesn't meet the emissions regs for the area.
Therefore it bans things that don't meet the regulations, unless the owners are willing to pay the fine. The number of people who're willing to pay the fine will be lower than the number who use other ways to get into the zone. It makes sense without taking the piss.
Ken's emission zone idea is a lot more draconian, will devalue a whole load of vehicles in the UK, will cause more pollution through people buying new vehicles in general than the German way which takes into account retro-fitted particulate traps and lets them in. Creating new vehicles is much, much less environmentally friendly than preserving / modifying ones that already exist and keeping them in good tune. On a "whole life" basis, things like old Land Rovers are much more eco-friendly than stuff that doesn't last 20+ years, never mind the chaos that recycling battery packs in hybrid stuff is going to wreak.
The German way encourages people to make their vehicles "friendlier" but doesn't hit the people who can't afford to buy a new vehicle as hard. Kens insane £200 a day charge is going to cause a lot of problems. I know a lot of bands, for example, who travel to London maybe once a month to do gigs and need to take musical instruments and PAs. They don't own new vans, they own 12 year old Transits and the like. It's not worth buying a new van for
12 gigs a year, so they're going to put the price of a hire van onto the price of a gig or not play the gig, so getting out of town bands to play in the emissions area is going to be £60-80 more expensive. The German way wouldn't be enough to stop these bands from using their van to do the gig, but it'd be enough to stop them going to Berlin on a daily basis.
The London thing doesn't affect me in the least as I don't go to London, but Kens insane ideas are putting seeds in the heads of other councils that see private transport as the enemy. I find Kens ideas on transport frankly offensive, he'd be voted out of any other city for even suggesting it, but London does have semi-decent public transport, unlike any other city in the UK. Something like Dave's SD1 wouldn't be allowed a sticker in Berlin so it'd cost him £20 a day to use it, but in London he's allowed to use it - until they hit the petrol stuff. Then it'll be £200 a day and worthless to pretty much anyone living in the Zone. In Germany it'd be worth keeping it as paying £20 every now and then isn't bad.
Why do I suspect the car storage companies in the South East are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect..
"Officials say the majority of cars in the affected cities qualify for t= he stickers."
OK the word "majority" could mean 51 out of 100 cars will qualify but I =
expect the figure is nearer 99 out of 100 otherwise there would be up roar. So stopping one vehicle out of 99 that produces 50% more particulates than the average makes a significant difference to the pollution in a given area does it?
Only if the other ways of getting into the zone are cheaper and just as =
convient. People will pay a small premium for the convience of their mot= or over the inconvience of public transport. Having said that this is Germa= ny and I believe their cities have good working PT systems unlike the majority of cities in the UK.
Big stick no carrot, that is the way the UK tries to do things. Though they'll say that the PT system in London is wonderful, which it is (by comparision to other UK cities) if you are carrying nothing bigger or heavier than newspaper.
Likewise, 'orrible place.
That probably depends on the urban/rural balance of the council. Round here PT is the enemy as they have to heavyly subsidise it to keep the on= e bus a week running. They rely on people being able to afford private transport. Cumbria, Eden District does have the Rural Wheels scheme, charges are 30p/mile but it only operates Monday to Friday 9-5 and you have to book at least 2 working days in advance. It is also restricted t= o transport only within Eden District(*) and to the nearest town or other = PT service. You may have to share, be flexible about times of travel and state that you have tried to us the VCS or PT first. Oh and you need to =
buy a Smartcard for =A35 first, that does give you a =A35 credit though.=
(*) Which means you can't use it to get to hospital appointments in Carlisle, Newcastle or Hexham, where you will almost certainly get refer= ed to by our local GP.
Thought the discussion was about London? Which has an excellent PT system. With more choices of how to do a journey than most.
It would be a whole new ball game introducing such restrictions in cities with a poor PT system - but then it's obvious they need to improve it before restricting cars, etc.
However, for perhaps the majority of car owners, PT would only ever be any good if it took them door to door at the precise second they wanted it to.
Strange how other countries don't need fines that big eh... Ken loves big fines for motorists, he's a bigot. There's not many areas where such large fines are dished out so readily for no good reason, the fines levied by the Congestion Charge and the LEZ are examples of local governance gone too far.
I don't live in London, but London issues still affect me as I often work there, voting isn't the answer to every political issue.
Not in Ken's LEZ, everything, ambulances, fire engines, busses, they're even named explicity on the website as being hit by the charge. If the claims of particle pollutants are true then it's probably a good scheme (and not really Ken's idea, there are EU regulations coming into force that set maximum limits on particle pollutants in the atmosphere and London is way above the limits) but marred by the over-zealous fines and procedures.
Nice to know you can read his thoughts. Until he says otherwise I'll take it he was referring to the CC. Unless he has other ideas about 'Kens insanity in London'.
Fine. Then vote to have the law changed. If fines are tiny the 'offence' gets ignored.
No surprise there. As I said most who *do* live here are in favour of the restrictions. Supported by the fact that Livingston has been voted in not once but twice.
Then like a good chap you should abide with the laws of that place as any visitor should. If I visit Oxford I don't expect to drive through its centre as it's car free - despite the fact I can drive through the centre of my home 'town' - Wandsworth.
That's a usual answer from someone who can't get their own way.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.