Whilst So Many Seem To Agree About What A

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathy
  • Start date Start date
K

Kathy

Guest
.... spare a thought for the Road Haulage Industry if Red Ken's plans go ahead next year. :rant: Please also note that if you drive anything that dumps more than 225g of carbon dioxide out of it's tailpipe the congestion charge (per day) jumps from £8 to £25! Remember, that the congestion charge area will also be changing from next February to roughly most places within the M25. By choosing the wrong car next year (according to Top Gear) you could be £6k a year worse off. Don't you just love these stealth taxes. :angy:

LEZ Hits London 28th May 2007 (from Nexus Rental)



News has come in that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, intends to implement a Low Emission Zone for London (effective February 2008 for vehicles over 12 tonnes running below Euro-3 emissions standards) affecting the very industry on which the UK's capital is completely reliant.

The LEZ will affect nearly 20,000 goods vehicles. But ours is the industry which ensures that London is fed, watered and clothed, said Road Haulage Association Chief Executive Roger King. Without heavy goods vehicles London would, quite literally, grind to a halt. Despite this, we are STILL not considered to be 'essential users' and are therefore subject to a congestion charge of GBP8.00 per day

Roger continued The announcement that around 20.000 commercial vehicles over 12 tonnes are to pay an additional GBP200 per day just for travelling within the 33 London Boroughs is ludicrous. It is no more than a stealth tax and a huge waste of public money generating limited benefit in terms of improved air quality.

Roger King further criticised the fact that millions of dirty diesel powered cars will also enter the new emissions zone every day but are not included in the Mayor's plan.The operators of the 20,000 vehicles facing the GBP200 per day charge or the prospect of spending several GBP1000s on retro fitting exhaust filters, won't find this so easy. Dustcarts, gritting lorries, and other municipal vehicles will also have to be compliant so for them too, it is a cost that will have to be passed on continued Roger King..

The outcome could result in an increased cost of living and in council tax. There are many concerns for those employed in commercial vehicle workshops around the Low Emission Zone area as operators will be forced to take their older vehicles outside the Zone for servicing.
 
Check Google....plenty of sites talking about it before you dismiss it as Tory rubbish. The Nexus site had a condensed version and I was in a rush.

If I had more time (which I havent) I would post up more about it.
 
Right, I'm late now but check out this government site.... and I am sure you will be able to see that it is not total bollox. This is a goverment site.

Press release: London Councils concerned at Mayor’s intention to press ahead with London LEZ
09/05/2007


London Councils has voiced concerns that the Mayor is pressing ahead with plans to introduce a London Low Emission Zone (LEZ) – despite warnings that it would prove hugely expensive while providing minimal benefit for Londoners.

When the Mayor consulted on the proposals in February 2007, London Councils warned that the LEZ would bring very little improvement to the capital’s air quality despite costing around £600 million to introduce and enforce.

Despite these warnings, the Mayor has announced today that he has approved plans to introduce the LEZ in February 2008. Under the scheme vehicles like heavy goods lorries, vans, coaches and buses will have to pay to enter Greater London.

Responding to Transport for London’s consultation on the LEZ, London Councils said that while it is committed to seeking ways to improve London’s air quality there are significant questions about the worth of the scheme currently proposed.

TfL’s figures show that with the LEZ, London’s air quality could improve overall by 11.6 per cent by 2010. However, their figures also show that even without the LEZ, the capital’s air quality will improve by 11.3 per cent by 2010 as a result of European standards on emission levels for new vehicles.

According to TfL’s own figures boroughs, hauliers, van operators and bus and coach firms now face compliance costs of £470 million to make their existing vehicles comply with the zone’s restrictions. Further, TfL also estimates it would cost around £130 million to introduce and enforce the LEZ.

London Councils is also concerned about how the LEZ will be enforced, especially for foreign registered vehicles. In total, around 95 per cent of the penalties issued in London to drivers of vehicles registered abroad go unpaid as there is no way of enforcing them. The Freight Transport Association estimate that there are around 10,000 foreign registered heavy goods vehicles in the UK each day.

London Councils believes an effective way forward would be for the Government to introduce tougher emissions standards for all vehicles through the annual MOT test. This would remove any need for additional expensive extra enforcement to be taken.

Chairman of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee, Councillor Daniel Moylan, said:

“While we share the Mayor’s aim of improving London’s air quality we cannot support a scheme that uses public money so recklessly. The LEZ will waste millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and add huge financial burdens to London’s businesses. Despite this huge expenditure, the Mayor’s proposed LEZ will achieve only miniscule benefits for Londoners. Six hundred million pounds for a 0.3 per cent increase in air quality is a poor return by anyone’s standards.

“It appears our evidence has not been heeded and that the Mayor is intent on pressing ahead with his plans irrespective of the cost. Perhaps he is more interested in grabbing the green headlines rather than doing what is best for London. Instead of rushing through a new tax on Londoners, the Mayor’s strategic role would be far better employed in lobbying government on behalf of the capital to lower emissions levels for all vehicles through the MOT test.”
 
Who mentioned the Tories?

It's a biased article by a company with a vested interest. It has no objective value whatsoever.
 
Having witnessed the behaviour of the vast majority of coal truck drivers (employees of the haulage companies) during the miners' strike (when they drove aggressively at miners and waved their pay slips at them), I have no sympathy with the industry in general.

Having been on the receiving end of ridiculously dangerous driving manoeuvres by truck drivers regularly, I have no sympathy with those drivers in particular.
 
What the F*CK has any of that political chip-on-shoulder-nursing got to do with the fact that ALL the heavy goods vehicles in London are there for a purpose necessary to the economy of both London and the country - and necessary to supply Londoners and the huge number of commuters, shoppers and tourists who come into the capital every day?

These goods vehicles provide the food, heating oil, you name it, which homes, hotels and businesses in the capital need, to function at all. Slapping a tax on them won't get them off the road, it will just be passed on to consumers. And most truck drivers don't own their vehicles.

As the spokesman for London Councils [most of them Labour btw] has pointed out, the way forward if KL is serious about reducing pollution, is to improve the exhaust systems of vehicles, not to tax them out of viability. But that wouldn't satisfy KL's power mania. He won't be satisfied until London is inhabited purely by legions of the disposessed interspersed with ghettos of the super rich. London is becoming a no-go area for ordinary people trying to earn an honest crust
 
It's no wonder no-one bothers with crappy public transport - TWENTY SIX* minutes I've been on hold trying to book a train ticket :rant: :rant:

(on the phone as their website isn't accepting bookings....:rant: )

*make that now TWENTY SEVEN
 
Entire phonecall lasted 37 minutes - phone picked up after 31 minutes. What an incentive to use public transport, eh?
 
That's the private sector for you Dom!!!

Try ringing Talk Talk's helpline sometime, (you'll be treated to a 55 minute loop of Thunderclap Newman imploring you to 'call out the instigator, because there's something in the air') ironic given that they are the instigator. Eon are another serial offender (which given that the correct English spelling is aeon is actually quite accurate). Or make a claim against an insurance policy. No problem taking a policy out, my God they answer the phones quick enough then, but try claiming on it, and you'll find a one armed, one eyed, hard of hearing old person manning a call centre in a disused lighthouse off the coast of Newfoundland every other Thursday afternoon.
 
:laughing:

Thinking about it, can anyone tell me how many calls a major bookie would expect to take on Grand National day, and how many staff they have handling them? It's just I had an argument with e-on who tried telling me how much more expesive my electricity would be if they employed more handlers. I told them I thought it would be about 2p more based on the numbers of millions of customers they had, and how much they pay call handling staff
 
Read the post, Euro!!!! I tried booking online, it wasn't working.

As for you Goober - you'll get a slap for that!! It seemed to be working fine until you got to stage 6 of 7 in the booking process when it re-directed you back to page 1....tried it 6 times all told!
 
Why are you travelling by train? Did one of those poxy postmen sabotage your caravan when they were supposed to be at work?
 
I do all my booking of train/coach tickets online nowadays (if u book in advance u can get some very good deals).
Touch wood I've never had any problems.
I'm going home for a few days at the end of the month and have just booked a couple of single tickets from Oxford to York at £12 each way which is excellent value.
 
It tends to make matters a little tricky if people are already sitting in those seats though - they don't tend to take kindly to people sitting on them....
 
Back
Top