London’s streets are seeing a peculiar transformation. Thanks to the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) policy, there’s been a surge in the purchase of classic cars. The reason? Vehicles manufactured before 1983 are exempt from the £12.50 ULEZ charge, being classified as ‘historic vehicles’.
Echoes of Cuba’s Classic Car Streets
“Londoners are snapping up classic cars in a bid to dodge Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ charge that will be expanded to cover all of the capital’s boroughs next week,”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12437769/Londoners-snap-classic-cars-dodge-ULEZ-Dealers-surge-older-models-capital-braces-expansion-12-50-zone.html
reports the Daily Mail. This move by Londoners to sidestep the ULEZ charge is eerily reminiscent of Cuba’s streets filled with classic cars from the 1950s, following the cut-off of auto imports from the United States.
The Ironic Outcome of a Misguided Policy
Dealers across London have noted a significant uptick in sales of cars from this era. Merlin McCormack, owner of Duke of London, a vintage car dealership in Brentford, pointed out the irony, stating that while these cars are exempt from the ULEZ charge,
“the older cars are more polluting than its modern equivalent.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12437769/Londoners-snap-classic-cars-dodge-ULEZ-Dealers-surge-older-models-capital-braces-expansion-12-50-zone.html
It’s almost humorous how a policy, supposedly aimed at reducing emissions, is inadvertently promoting the use of vehicles that might just be exacerbating the problem.
A Policy’s Unintended Loophole
Resale and auctioning websites are showcasing a variety of classic cars that will be exempt from the ULEZ charge. From a 1970 Hillman Imp Super to a 1973 Alfa Romeo 2000, the options are plenty for those looking to dodge the charge. As the article mentions,
“Under traffic calming scheme, that hopes to reduce the number of polluting vehicles from the capitals roads, Transport for London allows a 40-year window that allows exemptions for cars made in the early 1980s.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12437769/Londoners-snap-classic-cars-dodge-ULEZ-Dealers-surge-older-models-capital-braces-expansion-12-50-zone.html
While some might argue that the intention behind the ULEZ policy is to tackle toxic air pollution, this is clearly cover for implementing Central Planning Command and Control Green Climate Policies. The likelihood of increased toxic air pollution under the policies is simply hilarious. The unintended consequence of promoting older, more polluting vehicles, and these old vehicles REALLY do pollute, is a testament to the unforeseen outcomes of such misguided policies. One can’t help but smirk at the irony of it all.
Source: Daily Mail
H/T bnice2000
Actually doing something constructive when virtue signaling is beside the point.
I am effected by the ulez, we have a mk2 golf 1.8 8v engine and it’s 12.50, I was just outside the original zone and we would have to drive 6-7 miles to go food shopping as Asda, big Sainsbury’s was inside, but a friend with a Mercedes AMG 6.3 v8 is ok. Khan is hated by everybody, I’ve never heard one single person on tv, radio, or in a public setting saying he is good at being mayor, Shaun Bailey should have won!
How come a Mercedes AMG V8 is exempt?
Almost all cars are ULEZ exempt. Over 85%
Drivers of nearly 700,000 cars in Greater London could be liable to pay the ULEZ charge when the zone is expanded this summer | RAC Drive
It’s just a few old bangers and older models of diesel cars that are hit by the charge.
NOTE: ULEZ is about particulates, NOx and SOx. It’s not a global warming thing. That’s just a Daily Mail truth (e.g. a lie).
It’s not a global warming thing.
Not sure. From london.gov.uk:
It may be that CO2 and carbon emissions are being brought in as a justification for something done on other grounds…but they are there in the background and are part of the legitimacy argument.
Do you honestly think those savings are significant compared with the China and India emissions of 10 of billions of tons? It is seeking justification by misrepresentation.
Of course I don’t! I doubt it will make any measurable reduction even in London emissions.
I doubt even the authors of the plan seriously think that the emissons from these old cars are globally significant.
But I do think that the quotation from london.gov shows that vague considerations about CO2 emissions, and hence climate change, are a significant part of the intellectual atmosphere in which the ULEZ decision was considered and made.
This is definitely not just about particulates and NO2, that was my point. Climate activism is playing a role here.
What you wrote is correct:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/ultra-low-emission-zone/
“Diesel cars that meet the ULEZ standard are generally those first registered with the DVLA after September 2015, while compliant petrols tend to be vehicles first used after 2006.”
There is also a fund to provide subsidies when scrapping older vehicles – which in practice means between 1984 and 2006/2015 but apparently that fund is basically empty.
So in effect, the scheme is an older car removal scheme like Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers”.
The question, though, is whether the emissions limits will expand going forward. The EU seems intent on de-industrializing – not just due to natural gas starvation due to the “mysterious” Nordstream sabotage but through all manner of extreme environmental rules like recycled content regulations. My wife is head of regulatory affairs at a large international cosmetics and supplements company; she’s tearing her hair out at trying to get the company’s products (and all of its suppliers) to meet these new regulations.
The possibility of any small outfit, not selling horrifically expensive “green” products, to meet these regulations is zero simply because they would have to hire at least one full time regulatory expert just to do all the paperwork. In reality, it would be much more expensive because the recycled contents regs apply to packaging: the labels, the box, the inserts, etc etc.
You are dead right, my 2010 Focus ST, does 155 mph, is Euro 5, and ULEZ exempt.
Why people downvoted you is depressing, it means they down vote the truth, because they dont want to hear it.
You lot should be ashamed of yourselves. You come here for truth, honesty, the facts. And you react like this! Shame on you.
I think Jai means one of these
Unfortunately Londoners voted for him not once, but twice.
Yep: fooled Londoners once, shame on Sadist Khan; fooled Londoners twice, shame on Londoners!
Another shoot – ready – aim from the green zealots. People not willing to buy an older car will just go EV which is the intended outcome. Like Cuba there’s only so many older cars that are transportation worthy but unlike Cuba mechanics today don’t know how to troubleshoot a car without a data link and most people haven’t even heard of a choke knob. And a DB5 isn’t cheap. Morris Minor? I bet you can find some of those ready for refurb.
Won’t end well for London’s Khan. No different than NYC congestion pricing suit brought by NJ.
Green was OK when its cost wasn’t apparent and Greenies said there wasn’t a cost. Now Green cost is becoming apparent, and bad stuff will start to happen to Greenies tripped up by their lies.
Most people are well aware that ULEZ was a Boris plan and is being enforced by laws passed by a Conservative government, pushed by TfL funding difficulties (post-Covid) demanded by the Tory treasury.
Yes, some ignorant fools think this is down to the current mayor. But most people who care enough about ULEZ to actually vote on it know that it’s a national thing.
There is no chance that Khan will lose the next London mayoral vote.
Anyone thick enough to not understand ULEZ and believe the Daily Mail is probably not voting for him already because of the colour of his skin.
Yet they will keep voting the wrong people to keep this climate crisis nonsense to continue for a while since they are too busy being ignorant.
There is a phrase to cover this: The innovator will ALWAYS outdo the regulator.
Those of you “across the pond” that may not be reading about the backlash may be amused to read that a considerable percentage – up to 90% in some boroughs – of Komrade Khan’s ULEZ cameras have already been damaged in some way by “innovators” (anything from putting FCUK KHAN stickers on the lenses to complete demolition). It is rare for Brits to act in this way but this policy has seriously upset huge numbers of people inside and outside London.
That is good to know. Was predicted, but not so soon.
Hmmm . . . it is very comforting that many of our friends “across the pond” remain aware of the rights of citizens as first laid out in the Magna Carta, which inspired our very own Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Bravo.
Let’s see what happens if they enact a tea tax.
Yeah! Good one!
New Boston Tea Party.
Katie Hopkins explains how not to vandalise the cameras with filling foam, “£6.69 from ToolStation”, LoL.
https://youtu.be/H_0e82gEd5o
She is a good laugh!
Nice, but will they change their bad voting habits that caused this in the first place?
How so ULEZ cameras react to an 8W handheld laser pointer? Asking for a friend.
Tell your friend to give it a try.
An 8W laser pointer? Are they on Ebay? I assume the battery is in a suitable suitcase! Perhaps you mean 8W input, pity, it was such a good notion. I would rather a 5kW cutting laser, much much more effective
I suspect even an 8 mW output laser would have a permanent “effect” when hitting the CCD array at the focal point of modern CCTV cameras.
However, directed emissions from a can of black spray paint or “filling foam” applied to the front of the lens might be equally effective and cheaper.
Also, I have it on good authority that a projectile from a slingshot, BB gun or pellet gun hitting the camera lens with sufficient force to crack it might be detrimental to image quality.
But then, what do I know about such things?
“It” has to be the litmus test of any “policy” measure that a solution to avoid a diktat to reduce emissions is to force an access fee OR to turn a blind eye to the work round of buying an older – ULEZ exempt – vehicle to avoid the charge and retain access – in a more “polluting” vehicle. If this get out was discussed and waved through tells you all you need to know about the latest iteration of the Hattonesque Militant Tendency as administered by Comrade Khan – he is many bricks short of a full load if he does not realise this is the latest chapter in “The KIng’s New Clothes”.
It has to be said I’d avoid the Hillman Imp and the Alfa Romeo. A vintage Rover, Jag, Audi, or a Ferrari Dino (thought those are probably £1m+ to buy these days), Jensen Interceptor, or if you must go downmarket a Mini, Ford Capri or Cortina.
Sure – a fan of the German Capri Ghia that was imported to the US by Mercury back in the mid 1970s but they are extremely rare these days.
That AI rendition of an Italian design British coupe is nicely done! Reminds me of the sweet Fiat 124 coupe back in the late 1960s
I’d avoid the BL Mini also, along with the IMP, death traps as well as rust traps. And the Morris Minor, which some people are still nostalgic for. Basically avoid anything ever made by BL.
The old Ford Sierras and Granadas are probably the best choices, I think early models just qualify. The Granadas in particular were built like tanks, with a clutch pedal action to match. Drive that in modern London and your left leg will show it.
The problem with going down the classic route is that cars of that day were far less safe and generally less reliable than modern ones. Driving a 40 year old car as daily transport isn’t something to do if you have any alternative at all.
Maybe also a VW Beetle?
Why ? City speed isn’t so fast to be to dangerous.
No in London and Bristol it averages about 6-7 MPH. They still want speed cameras though. Cash, cash…
Collision protection. And city speeds are fast enough to make this a real issue. You don’t have to be going at freeway speeds for it to be a consideration. I would not drive an old style Mini or Imp in modern London. Maybe an old Granada.
In about 1975 i was in a collision with an idiot showing off to his girl friend in his dad’s car. He lost control going round a corner which I saw and tried to take avoiding action. I was in a very early BMC Mini: starter button on the floor, sliding winds and wire pull door opening, about 1961 vintage. When he hit the offside front he was still going pretty fast probably about 30mph I was virtually stationary with nowhere to go. Totally destroyed the front offside of the car, removed the wheel. The worst part was he’d hit inside the wheel arch and made a large dent into the footwell. Fortunately apart front some bruises, mainly on my head from the door pillar I was uninjured. I think he was driving a Ford Cortina or similar.
I think if I had the same collision with a BEV SUV then the result would be far worse than a few bruises.
You got lucky. Today cars are bigger and heavier. I wouldn’t even consider driving an old style Mini or an Imp today.
On a bicycle or as pedestrian you are more in danger.
Indeed yes. Its partly in the UK that we insist on mixing cars, bikes, trucks and to some extent people on foot. But even in Holland where there are mainly segregated bikeways, there are lots of serious bike accidents and some fatalities.
All the same, the argument for restricting cars is not much affected by that. The argument is that a car and truck free environment is much pleasanter to be in. Its also safer for people on foot or bikes than one where there are cars. They have valid interests too, so just giving them safer and nicer spaces is a legitimate reason for taking the streets, or some streets, away from cars.
The UK has had the absurd nominal policy of encouraging bike use while refusing to provide car and truck free paths or streets. This is quite wrong, and its led to lots of people trying cycling in cities, realizing what its really like (terrifying), and stopping. But its on a par with the general approach of the UK political class to both energy and transport.
Lets build lots of turbines, without providing for intermittency. Lets ban ICE cars without providing charging points for EVs or even enough power in the grid, and not enough local cabling capacity to even install charging points.
And so on…
Well maintained a 40 years old car is just as reliable as anything else. They were my daily drives for years. Put a fuel filter on to protect the carb jets, fit electronic ignition and there is little else to go wrong.
Modern fuels & lubricants make the world of difference to the reliability of older cars.
I habve been driving my current 1980 Triumph TR7 for 21 years covering 121,000 kilometers. It has cost me a total of A$15,000 in purchase, restoration & maintenance including a recent bare metal respray job. It is now in as new condition, ready for another 100,000 kilometers.
You couldn’t give me an all too complex modern, particularly battery electric things. LiPo batteries are great for drones, & my remote control aircraft toys, but should never be kept too close to anything you value.
A car I liked a lot as it was mine for six years and I was young 😀
With closed headlights:
Story tip:
(by way of a flag for editorial attention)
Time to update the copyright notice to include 2023! There’s no knowing what Sou Hotwhopper might get up to otherwise…
Who needs ULEZ in London, the wind blows fast enough to keep air standards at a reasonable level. More virtue signaling nonsense.
Its needed below road level…..
It’s akin to the EPA’s efficiency rules that keep companies from selling truly small pickups in the USA. Ones the size of the old Courier, Brat, LUV, Arrow etc of the 1970’s through early 80’s.
Based on the EPA size formula, trucks that size if sold today would be required to average 45 to 55 miles per gallon.
So about what any small European car will do.
Probably end up in a gradual shift to left hand controls in London as classic cars are imported from Europe and Cuba.
New Zealand has never had its own motor vehicle manufacturing industry so they are very good at maintaining old cars. Might be a flow of vintage UK made vehicles back to UK. Nelson classic car museum could be in for a windfall:
https://www.newzealand.com/au/plan/business/nelson-classic-car-museum/
Lots of British made classics there.
story tip:
Lurch speaketh:
John Kerry Says Climate Change Deniers are Part of a Dangerous Cult (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/john-kerry-says-climate-change-deniers-are-part/
Another mindless green “initiative” that costs the community heaps and achieves nothing.
Greens were a harmless fringe group when all they did was hug trees.
Oh, for those times to return!
Actually the rush to the pre 1983 cars will generate a huge subset industry.
Since these vehicles don’t have on board computers running every thing fixing them will be easier.
Some outcomes:
1. Small business/home workshops will evolve.
2. Body panel builders/makers will emerge using modern technology to make replacement plastic/carbon fibre replacements.
3. Engine rebuilders will suddenly become a re-emerging industry.
A whole new set of small business and a boost to the economy.
I bet that was never considered by the illustrious Khan..
You can get an entire new bodyshell for some classic British sports cars. All you need for it to be ‘original’ is a registration number and chassis(frame) number.
They are so popular that every single spare part is still available.
Fear not: I’m sure Sadist is on the case. Tweaks to the rules will doubtless emerge shortly.
ULEZ is simply aboiut raising money for Sadiq Khans private fiefdom. It has nothing to do with Green at all.
The ULEZ project is ill conceived, but I think its biggest flaw is that it misses the real problem in London and other cities. There is a cultural change going on, concerning the role of cars in cities. In another 30 years or so I suspect people will look back and find it inconceivable that we really permitted the complete domination of the urban environment by cars.
In rather the same way as I suspect people will eventually look back with incredulity at the idea that people tolerated watching their TV programs perpetually interrupted by endless commercials.
ULEZ is in denial about this. The assumption is that all we have to do is lower emissions a bit and then we can carry on as before. I don’t think that’s going to happen. The UK Government is wavering on one element of Net Zero, the commitment to banning all sales of oil boilers after 2005. But its not wavering at all on the ban of sales of ICE cars from 2030.
The effect of this on the automobile market in the UK will be dramatic. First, EVs will cost much more than ICE. Second, there isn’t going to be the grid capacity to charge them in the required numbers.
Local as well as national. Remember, they are moving to wind and solar at the same time as moving heating to heat pumps and cars to EVs, so the national grid won’t support the increased demand, but even if it did, the local distribution networks mostly lack the capacity.
Third, they have shorter range and take 10 times as long to refuel, so they will be unusable for many of the current uses of automobiles. Fourth, because of the loss of gasoline tax revenue, the Government is going to have to move to road use pricing – ULEZ is installing the infrastructure that could be used for this at some point.
The conclusion is inescapable. Car sales and car ownership are going to fall, and this will bring about very great social changes.
The cultural change, you may be doubtful if there is any such thing. I would say, there certainly is at a political and establishment level. Its happened, and ULEZ is an example. There is a political class agenda whose destination is reducing car use and ownership, particularly in cities. Unfortunately, like the rest of the Net Zero agenda its not thought through and it consists of bits and pieces that are inconsistent or useless and don’t form part of a coherent plan.
I would really like to see cities with a lot fewer cars, a lot more streets reserved for walkers and cyclists. Less noise, less pollution, a more agreeable environment. But ULEZ, at least in its present form, is not going to get there or even be a step closer to that.
If you want to see the problem, look in rush hour at the A12 as it enters East London. That is the problem. ULEZ is a lot of heat and dust which doesn’t begin to address it.
Story Tip.
Recently a survey by an independent man of London pollution showed that it is below the legal limit everywhere that he tested using the latest modern technology (which is also quite reasonably priced). He then measured on the London Tube (Underground electric trains). The pollution levels of particulates are well above the legal level by a factor of 5-10 depending where the measurment is made. The Mayor of London appears to be oblivious to the fact his “Transport for London” is being run illegally and by his own standards should be banned. See Brown Car Guy on youtube. In fact he is personally poisoning Londoners. Hypocracy at its best. Of course its really about cash!
This is actually stupid though,. you can get a good Euro 5 Petrol car, thats ULEZ exempt, for £4k or £5k. Spending two, three times this for an old unreliable, and fuels thirsty car is a bit nuts, even if they are road tax and MoT exempt.
I think tre DM are making this up
If/when this sort of thing comes to Australia, I’ll be glad I hung on to the ’69 MG!
Perhaps Sadiq Khan is hoping to raise London up to rival the wonderful socialist vision that is Cuba. Time to grow some really impressive facial hair and buy some khakis.