ULEZ nonsense.. Someone make it make sense..

[Dave_Q]

Petrol cars have to meet 0.08g/km NOx which is the Euro 4 standard. Not neccesarily related to the g/km CO2.

Maybe for some reason or another one of those cars is above on NOx and one is below. You would need the logbooks to be sure. 

Broadly speaking the checker assumes most things after 2001 (for petrol) are compliant. 

With the imports, they don't tend to have emissions info on the logbook which might lead to compliant cars showing as non-compliant. 

There are pre Euro 4 petrol cars that are ULEZ compliant on NOx, you just need to prove it via either the logbook or a certificate of compliance from the manufacturer.

[N19]

I enquired about my Mondeo, and Ford were able to pull me the Nox reading out within 15 minutes (not bad for a random 23 year old car). Unfortunately it didn't pass the standard, but had it done so, I believe tfl would have reclassified it. 

It's a pain in the backside, and not justified in many ways. I don't drive down Oxford Street, that would be insane, but are you really telling me that the outer suburbs are the same?. I've bought the focus to do most of my trundling around, the Mondeo isn't compliant but for a few times per month, long trips or carrying lots of stuff, I'll swallow the charge. I can also get to my lockup and back without passing a camera.

[chaseracer]

This is a useful general discussion on which vehicles are ULEZ/CAZ compliant.

If you want to comment on the politics or the personalities involved, please use the existing thread on the Politics & Similar section: 

Cheers.

[Spiny Norman]

It's hilarious. My mate's tractor engined 62 plate Astra 1.3, done about 70k miles, serviced on the dot and bought because it does a bazillion MPG (despite him now working from home when he's lucky to do 3000 miles a year) and tiny tiny CO2 is persona non grata in Glasgow's LEZ while my 18 year old gas guzzling Saab Aero turbo is quite welcome to wend its way through the mean streets of the inner city, leaving a trail of unburnt hydrocarbons in its wake.

Never mind, all these folks like my mate who are now having to consider chopping in their well maintained, tiny mileage fuel sipping shopping cars to buy a new 2.5 tonne EV full of nice things like newly manufactured plastics and batteries fresh from the cobalt mines of the Congo, can rest easy in the knowledge that they're being "green" and "eco" and saving the planet properly this time. Really...

 

[horriblemercedes]

1 minute ago, Spiny Norman said:

It's hilarious. My mate's tractor engined 62 plate Astra 1.3, done about 70k miles, serviced on the dot and bought because it does a bazillion MPG (despite him now working from home when he's lucky to do 3000 miles a year) and tiny tiny CO2 is persona non grata in Glasgow's LEZ while my 18 year old gas guzzling Saab Aero turbo is quite welcome to wend its way through the mean streets of the inner city, leaving a trail of unburnt hydrocarbons in its wake.

Never mind, all these folks like my mate who are now having to consider chopping in their well maintained, tiny mileage fuel sipping shopping cars to buy a new 2.5 tonne EV full of nice things like newly manufactured plastics and batteries fresh from the cobalt mines of the Congo, can rest easy in the knowledge that they're being "green" and "eco" and saving the planet properly this time. Really...

 

 

But the CO2 output is a red herring. It bears no influence on the rules for these zones

The two don't meet the same particulate and NOx standards, which is what counts for this

[sierraman]

I’m considering getting a Petter diesel to sit in the garden running 24 hours a day to belch out clag. I made a commitment to myself at New Year that I was going to pollute more while I could. 

[Bren]

My 20 year old V8 BMW is ULEZ compliant.

As these things spread stuff like VW PD cars will disappear.

Somebody needs to point out to these people that replacing servicable old cars with new will never help the environment.

[Spiny Norman]

But it's not about helping the environment, it's about maintaining the global car industry and restricting mobility for the regular punter.

If it was about the environment they'd be taxing cars by weight and by the amount of fuel they used. It's not rocket science to understand that a 2 tonne vehicle needs more resources to both build and drive than the 700kg a Citroen AX weighed. As a great man once said, "just add lightness".

[sierraman]

31 minutes ago, Spiny Norman said:

But it's not about helping the environment, it's about maintaining the global car industry and restricting mobility for the regular punter.

If it was about the environment they'd be taxing cars by weight and by the amount of fuel they used. It's not rocket science to understand that a 2 tonne vehicle needs more resources to both build and drive than the 700kg a Citroen AX weighed. As a great man once said, "just add lightness".

It’s never been about the environment, it’s been about gentrifying areas and taxing the shit out of the ordinary working folk. 

[willswitchengage]

9 hours ago, uk_senator said:

Well that just makes no sense..

As far as imports are concerned, I`ve seen numerous ex-Japan, 2000`s Volvo`s, Mercs & JDM`s here, which should meet compliance regs, but don't, & yet these ex-Mexico things are Euro 4 & 5b, & do comply, somehow:

Even though they are grey imports the Euro emission standard is used pretty much everywhere in the world as a benchmark other than North America which has its own standards. E.g. Japanese trucks market themselves in Asia as complying themselves as EuroX compliant.

Puzzling though as presumably those T2s or whatever they're called won't have a European type approval I would have thought so is the onus on the importer to say they have airbags, ABS, are emissions compliant etc? 

Weirdly I reckon the only mass market vehicles that you couldn't sell in Europe are those from the USA as they don't have amber rear indicators.

[sheffcortinacentre]

Perhaps someone can tell me why my 02 falcon Ute (LPG only no petrol system fitted at factory) is exempt from bath ulez but non of the others, but my mates 91 diesel P100 is exempt from them all???

Also there's been a reduced to 60 mph  section  "for better air quality " between j 33-34 on the M1 for months yet Mon eve as it was down to 2 from 4 lanes to sweep the carriage way, the limit had been removed & all the matrix signs where blank?????

[horriblemercedes]

55 minutes ago, sheffcortinacentre said:

Perhaps someone can tell me why my 02 falcon Ute (LPG only no petrol system fitted at factory) is exempt from bath ulez but non of the others, but my mates 91 diesel P100 is exempt from them all???

Also there's been a reduced to 60 mph  section  "for better air quality " between j 33-34 on the M1 for months yet Mon eve as it was down to 2 from 4 lanes to sweep the carriage way, the limit had been removed & all the matrix signs where blank?????

Registered as a private car? I thought Bath's one was commercial vehicles only? 

 

Then presumably it's just to do with what data is held/how it is held for the others 

[Lankytim]

Will this ULEZ expansion make much of a difference to emissions anyway? The cars that this legislation is aimed at are decreasing in number naturally every day as they reach the end of their lives. The revenue from ULEZ fines etc will get less and less until it’ll barely be worth maintaining the camera infrastructure. 

[horriblemercedes]

2 hours ago, Spiny Norman said:

But it's not about helping the environment, it's about maintaining the global car industry and restricting mobility for the regular punter.

If it was about the environment they'd be taxing cars by weight and by the amount of fuel they used. It's not rocket science to understand that a 2 tonne vehicle needs more resources to both build and drive than the 700kg a Citroen AX weighed. As a great man once said, "just add lightness".

No, it's not about the wider environment. It's about the very specific environment of air quality within the zone. Specifically the air breathed by people there. 

 

It's publically acknowledged that it's not to do with CO2 or resources. That's outside the remit of these systems 

[willswitchengage]

5 minutes ago, Lankytim said:

Will this ULEZ expansion make much of a difference to emissions anyway? The cars that this legislation is aimed at are decreasing in number naturally every day as they reach the end of their lives. The revenue from ULEZ fines etc will get less and less until it’ll barely be worth maintaining the camera infrastructure. 

Everybody knows it's a daft idea. Old cars are driven the least of any on the road. New cars still cause congestion and cause accidents. Old cars naturally remove themselves over time through attrition. Most of the new ULEZ is empty farmland etc. It's just become a political football nothing else.

[Dead_E23]

It's got nothing to do with the environment or any nonsense about air quality.   It's all about funding TfL.

[Asimo]

No.
It is about making cities less shit.

Why? Because a lot of people living in a small space such as a city just have to consider each other’s needs.

One of those needs is breathable air.

Car-produced CO2  doesn’t affect peoples ability to breathe, car-produced NOx and particulates do.

If you care about the people that you drive past, care about your vehicle’s emissions.

[somewhatfoolish]

The main contributors to glasgow pollution were buses and cabs, the latter were given a bye by the council because apparently the LEZ starting is a surprise and the former are mostly funded by the public purse, so if improved environmental controls are needed why not attach it as a condition of tendering for bus contracts?

[TheOtherStu]

14 hours ago, uk_senator said:

Saw these a few days ago, in the upcoming ULEZ extension.

Car one, a Jan 2002 registered 147, Euro 3, 1970cc twinspark engine, official emissions of 211g/km, NOT ULEZ compliant...

Car two, Sept 2001 registered GTV, Euro 3, 1970cc twinspark engine, official emissions of 220g/km.. Is ULEZ compliant...

Someone make it make sense please.. 😐

Ok, so I can make some sense of it. In that it’s entirely inconsistent, but it’s not about CO2 emissions. It’s simply about being Euro 4. But not always. A Bugatti Veyron has 574g of CO2 but they’re exempt.

So first of all, in theory, no car can be exempt if it was made before Jan 2006. Except it can. 
 

I bang on about MR2 roadsters because I have one and I’m also coordinator for a large club so it’s my job to help folk out with them.

The Roadster was made between 1999 and mid 2006. All of them have cats and there was no variant. They all came with a 1.8L 1zz petrol engine.

I originally had a 53 plate which said it was compliant. Then I bought an 04 plate that said it wasn’t. So I wrote to them and it now shows as being compliant.

I know of people whose cars are showing as compliant on a Y Reg. I’ve others that aren’t on an 05. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

I do wonder if you’ve been caught up with this. Was the engine in the GTV used after 2006 and the 147 not?
 

[LightBulbFun]

I dont get people saying it makes no sense and that its inconsistent? as I explained on my post on page 1 

all ULEZ/ULEZ checker cares about for Petrol vehicles is, the NOx level recorded on its DVLA record, if its 0.08 or less PASS if its more than 0.08 FAIL

it really cant get more clear cut then that, even TFL themselves point out that some pre Euro 4 are compliant since they happen to meet the ULEZ requirements anyways

if there is no emissions data on the V5 then it wont assume compliance, simple as

 

 

the only bit I am a bit uncertain about is how the ULEZ checker handles *incomplete* data, where some emissions data is recorded but not all of it

for example @Andyrew's imported Astra KE53UVH, despite being a diesel does come up as ULEZ compliant, and I know its got *some* emissions data recorded since it shows a CO2 figure on the DVLA, but I wonder if the PM section was never filled in or such (I cant check that level of data from this end sadly)

it could be that when emissions data is down as "recorded" but incomplete, then it may assume compliance, hence all the imports that come up as compliant when they are not really

but until I see the V5 of one of those imports I cant say for sure 

 

[uk_senator]

8 hours ago, TheOtherStu said:

Ok, so I can make some sense of it. In that it’s entirely inconsistent, but it’s not about CO2 emissions. It’s simply about being Euro 4. But not always. A Bugatti Veyron has 574g of CO2 but they’re exempt.

So first of all, in theory, no car can be exempt if it was made before Jan 2006. Except it can. 
 

I bang on about MR2 roadsters because I have one and I’m also coordinator for a large club so it’s my job to help folk out with them.

The Roadster was made between 1999 and mid 2006. All of them have cats and there was no variant. They all came with a 1.8L 1zz petrol engine.

I originally had a 53 plate which said it was compliant. Then I bought an 04 plate that said it wasn’t. So I wrote to them and it now shows as being compliant.

I know of people whose cars are showing as compliant on a Y Reg. I’ve others that aren’t on an 05. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

I do wonder if you’ve been caught up with this. Was the engine in the GTV used after 2006 and the 147 not?
 

Its literally the same engine, there may be a minor mapping difference between the two for different driving characteristics, which may explain the difference in C02, or maybe not, maybe its a data input error, I genuinely don't know. What I do know is, those engines are literally interchangeable in every way, & it was used in numerous Alfa`s in all body styles at that time, & it especially doesn't make sense that the marginally older one, with higher recorded C02, is compliant & the other is not. 

[uk_senator]

7 hours ago, LightBulbFun said:

I dont get people saying it makes no sense and that its inconsistent? as I explained on my post on page 1 

all ULEZ/ULEZ checker cares about for Petrol vehicles is, the NOx level recorded on its DVLA record, if its 0.08 or less PASS if its more than 0.08 FAIL

 

the only bit I am a bit uncertain about is how the ULEZ checker handles *incomplete* data, where some emissions data is recorded but not all of it

for example @Andyrew's imported Astra KE53UVH, despite being a diesel does come up as ULEZ compliant, and I know its got *some* emissions data recorded since it shows a CO2 figure on the DVLA, but I wonder if the PM section was never filled in or such (I cant check that level of data from this end sadly)

it could be that when emissions data is down as "recorded" but incomplete, then it may assume compliance, hence all the imports that come up as compliant when they are not really

but until I see the V5 of one of those imports I cant say for sure 

 

Something else I`ve noticed with most, if not all post 2001 imported cars, is that the road tax band information on totalcarcheck is blank, whether they`re ULEZ compliant or not. I`ve also seen mid 2000`s ex-Japan "repatriated" European imports (petrol) cars, like Volvo`s & Mercs, arent ULEZ compliant, when you`d think that Japanese spec cars would have had more stringent regs than European spec ones at the time, & the Euro versions of these cars were all compliant at that time too. Has anyone on here got one of these cars, or imported one?

There's so much nonsense going on, & when I see cars like this immaculate, 17,000 mile, increasingly rare 147 getting scrapped by OAP`s who just don't have the inclination to argue any more, & don't want to deal with selling their largely cherished motors, or assume its just a worthless due to its age, specifically because of ULEZ, its infuriating to me, especially when its ULEZ status is highly questionable, & it should be infuriating to anyone into older cars.

ULEZ schemes are catastrophic for autoshitters, not just in London either. There's said to be 180,000 vehicles that do not meet requirements within the zone, God knows how many vehicles in the home counties are affected as well, a good percentage of these cars are being unceremoniously squashed, with Redcorn scrappy alone crushing an extra 15,000+ a month specifically because of it, that's a hell of a lot of perfectly good 80`s & 90`s autoshite being taken out of the system, permanently. And remember, the OAP`s in outer London have a glorious range of range of rare chod that's already on the endangered list, most mint low miles & serviced within an inch of their lives, which is now getting binned daily specifically because of ULEZ, not broken for parts, properly binned. Its a huge loss to all of "us" as car lovers..

[warninglight]

23 hours ago, uk_senator said:

I dread to think whats going through Redcorns gates at the moment (the SE`s biggest scrappy), they were on the BBC news a couple of months ago, they`d already seen a 60% jump in cars being scrapped (from an average 300 cars a day to 1000), & he predicted that would be increasing.. 😐 (they just depollute & squash everything coming in, as there is no time to strip them).

Did they say it was a 60% jump, or that it was now 1000 per day?

A 60% increase on 300 is 480 per day. 1000 per day is a well over 200% increase. 

Sorry to be pedantic, but I expect much of what's being reported on this is blown out of proportion. I've never met anyone who has assumed their low mileage, owned from new car is worthless. People are generally more savvy than than.

[uk_senator]

11 hours ago, somewhatfoolish said:

The main contributors to glasgow pollution were buses and cabs, the latter were given a bye by the council because apparently the LEZ starting is a surprise and the former are mostly funded by the public purse, so if improved environmental controls are needed why not attach it as a condition of tendering for bus contracts?

Funny you should mention Glasgow, one of my Flickr mates lives in Glasgow & his 93 Daihatsu Applause is exempt from Glasgow's ULEZ somehow, and I cant work out why.. I thought the UK`s "historic" class (which get exemption from ULEZ schemes) was 40 years across the UK, so how/why is his 93 car exempt, so I`ve checked some of mine on  https://www.lowemissionzones.scot/vehicle-registration-checker, sure enough, my old Fiats are all compliant, & my 99 XJR isn't..   but my 87-99 cars aren't in London's ULEZ? Why the different standards? Its just more nonsense..

[AnnoyingPentium]

1 minute ago, uk_senator said:

one of my Flickr mates lives in Glasgow & his 93 Daihatsu Applause is exempt from Glasgow's ULEZ somehow, and I cant work out why

Alan Gold, by any chance?

Anyway, Glasgow LEZ (and the upcoming ones for other Scottish cities) seem to have a rolling 30 year exemption, AFAIK, in comparison to the 40 year rolling exemption in those in England.

[uk_senator]

7 minutes ago, warninglight said:

Did they say it was a 60% jump, or that it was now 1000 per day?

A 60% increase on 300 is 480 per day. 1000 per day is a well over 200% increase. 

Sorry to be pedantic, but I expect much of what's being reported on this is blown out of proportion. I've never met anyone who has assumed their low mileage, owned from new car is worthless. People are generally more savvy than than.

Sorry, my maths is shite.. from 300 up to 1000, whatever percentage that is. I have no reason to doubt his figures, they had the same jump when the last inner ULEZ was introduced a couple of years back.

I`ve taken pictures of 10`s of thousands of London's old cars in the last 15 years, & spoken to many owners, as well as being in & around the motor trade for decades, I can tell you, LOADS of OAP`s people scrap cars we want ALL the time assuming they`re worthless, because they go by the values of old cars of 30 years ago, I`ve seen it SO many times.

[uk_senator]

2 minutes ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

Alan Gold, by any chance?

Anyway, Glasgow LEZ (and the upcoming ones for other Scottish cities) seem to have a rolling 30 year exemption, AFAIK, in comparison to the 40 year rolling exemption in those in England.

Indeed! Who else would it be! 😂

As I say, nonsense, why should there be different standards in different UK cities? Are Glasgee`s residents lives less worthy as far as emission standards are concerned, IF that's the British governments argument? Why does historic mean different things depending on your city? Its all just such bollocks..

[uk_senator]

19 hours ago, N19 said:

I enquired about my Mondeo, and Ford were able to pull me the Nox reading out within 15 minutes (not bad for a random 23 year old car). Unfortunately it didn't pass the standard, but had it done so, I believe tfl would have reclassified it. 

It's a pain in the backside, and not justified in many ways. I don't drive down Oxford Street, that would be insane, but are you really telling me that the outer suburbs are the same?. I've bought the focus to do most of my trundling around, the Mondeo isn't compliant but for a few times per month, long trips or carrying lots of stuff, I'll swallow the charge. I can also get to my lockup and back without passing a camera.

Is there a map of the camera locations, or have you just noticed them? I think I`m pretty much landlocked where I am, despite living not far from you..

[EyesWeldedShut]

2 minutes ago, uk_senator said:

Why the different standards? Its just more nonsense..

Both my Volvo and the wife's Bini fail to meet the English standards in London, Birmingham and Bristol - elsewhere they are OK. Weird.
Biggest pain (for me) is the commercial vehicle tax - £50 to £100 a day in any of the English zones on my > 3.5 tonne Boxer and, given that I used to be in the habit of nipping off motorways to fill it up something to be wary of. Birmingham and Manchester in particular (M60, J19 Sainsburys - one minute off the motorway - if the Manchester zone comes back into force then it's no longer an option).

Scotland, at least, is running a level playing field across the country (so I believe) but both our cars fail their checks. No big deal - just need to be careful route planning.
Best thing about Glasgow is that the zone is tiny (thin end of a wedge maybe?) and the bloody M8 motorway passes right over the top of it - maybe they got some big extraction fans to catch the fallout from there?

 

[uk_senator]

5 minutes ago, EyesWeldedShut said:

Both my Volvo and the wife's Bini fail to meet the English standards in London, Birmingham and Bristol - elsewhere they are OK. Weird.
Biggest pain (for me) is the commercial vehicle tax - £50 to £100 a day in any of the English zones on my > 3.5 tonne Boxer and, given that I used to be in the habit of nipping off motorways to fill it up something to be wary of. Birmingham and Manchester in particular (M60, J19 Sainsburys - one minute off the motorway - if the Manchester zone comes back into force then it's no longer an option).

Scotland, at least, is running a level playing field across the country (so I believe) but both our cars fail their checks. No big deal - just need to be careful route planning.
Best thing about Glasgow is that the zone is tiny (thin end of a wedge maybe?) and the bloody M8 motorway passes right over the top of it - maybe they got some big extraction fans to catch the fallout from there?

 

As you say, thin end of the wedge, thousands of cameras popping up all over the country, I think we all know where this is going...