Fringe Box



Letter: Ulez Is Not A Tax-generating Idea

Published on: 25 Aug, 2023
Updated on: 25 Aug, 2023

From: Tamsy Baker

In response to: ULEZ Defeat for Surrey – Council Leader Says Decision Will Damage Lives

Some of the readers’ comments about ULEZ are so depressing. The ultra-low emission zone is to protect children and older people from having breathing problems due to polluted air.

Of course it isn’t a tax-generating idea. It was the brainchild of the Tories (for which they should be commended) and is being rolled out by the present London Mayor for the benefit of children’s health. Asthma can kill and also has financial costs for the NHS.

I run an old Ford CMax and it’s worth about £1,000 but complies with ULEZ, so arguments about cost aren’t really true.

People who complain are the ones who don’t want ULEZ but use the excuse that they are concerned for the poor. 90 per cent of cars are ULEZ compliant so it will make no difference to the great majority of us.

The people who will really suffer are those running old diesel vans and mini-buses who will have to upgrade to more expensive vehicles.

Share This Post

Responses to Letter: Ulez Is Not A Tax-generating Idea

  1. John Perkins Reply

    August 26, 2023 at 9:48 am

    Tamsy Baker accuses those who don’t want ULEZ of using the excuse that they are concerned for the poor, yet is content to use the excuse that the zone is to protect children and older people from having breathing problems.

    The zone offers no protection from the poor quality of air in the Underground system, which is far worse than on any road.

    A study by King’s College and Imperial College estimated 1,000 hospital admissions every year were for asthma and serious lung conditions caused by poor air quality in the capital. That was four years after the introduction of ULEZ in 2015. It would be interesting to know how many fewer are expected following the extension and how many more there were before 2015.

    Also useful would be a comparison between the emissions of ULEZ-compliant and non-compliant vehicles.

    I don’t drive.

  2. Olly Azad Reply

    August 27, 2023 at 3:17 am

    With respect, I disagree with Tamsy Baker’s take on ULEZ.

    Whilst it may have some health benefits to the lungs of little ones and the elderly, I cannot think of a worse time to implement the expansion than now when the cost of living crisis is very much alive and kicking.

    The ordinary working classes of all London would be directly impacted by the blatant efforts of City Hall to extract yet more money from motorists, as if the congestion charge was not enough.

    I do not condone, for a split second, the lawless behaviour by some going around smashing up Ulez cameras, as reported by the media, but it is another example of the frustrations being felt for merely wanting to drive your vehicle in London.

    Surely there are other ways in which traffic pollution could be tackled better, however, ULEZ would not be the route I would take on that journey. In the meantime, safe driving would be the first priority.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *