The scheme will be enforced by the Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.
Drivers found to be in charge of a non-compliant vehicle may be issued with a £50 Fixed Penalty Notice
The offence also carries a potential fine of £1000 at Magistrate’s court
The Traffic Commissioner, who has the power to modify or suspend operator licenses, will also be notified of companies operating vehicles in breach of the scheme
Winseer:
Does a haulier pay a subscription? Make sure all it’s vehicles use Adblue? - or is it charged to the firm every time one of their vehicles “runs down a marked road”>
If the truck is newer than 2006 then no charge payable. If it’s an older vehicle then the charge is payable on every day that it is driven inside the LEZ (there are no “marked roads” or “permitted routes”).
What’s 2006 got to do with anything ? And which charge ? The £10 or the £200 ?
the nodding donkey:
If my boss wants me to deliver into London, that’s what I’ll do. If the vehicle he gave me (which is registered in his name) is not compliant with any of the big smokes stupid rules, that’s his problem.
Happy days.
I’ve done the same. Had to take an old crate into London, I knew it was too old but got on with it. Company gets the fine, pull me into office and I just pleaded ignorance stating I’m paid to drive and deliver, not worry about the specification of the vehicle.
I’ve never cared what bhp or who made the engine for whatever truck I’ve driven. I avoid any driver who starts to talk about such a subject in my presence, or if I can’t get away I yawn loudly in their direction.
Winseer:
Does a haulier pay a subscription? Make sure all it’s vehicles use Adblue? - or is it charged to the firm every time one of their vehicles “runs down a marked road”>
If the truck is newer than 2006 then no charge payable. If it’s an older vehicle then the charge is payable on every day that it is driven inside the LEZ (there are no “marked roads” or “permitted routes”).
What’s 2006 got to do with anything ? And which charge ? The £10 or the £200 ?
Lorries first used on the roads after 1st October 2006 should meet the required emissions standard and so will not be subject to the daily charge. Older lorries in all probability will not meet the required standard (although some manufacturers did start earlier than that, so it’s worth checking). The daily charge for lorries is £200. I have no idea what the £10 charge is that you mention (are you thinking of the £11.50 a day Congestion Charge?)
Ok I know what you mean ,but never heard the 2006 bit ,you can put a particle trap exhaust on a lorry of any age if it passes the smoke test it can go in the lez .
Punchy Dan:
Ok I know what you mean ,but never heard the 2006 bit ,you can put a particle trap exhaust on a lorry of any age if it passes the smoke test it can go in the lez .
Some of our older motors have had the exhaust sorted but one driver personally received a £50 fine for not having a peepy - down
mirror at the front. ( The firm reimbursed him).
I don’t want to be driving down a road, and avoiding all streets from fear that I somehow might not be compliant with these endless hoops drivers are expected to jump through.
At pure face value
A 3.5t Low Emission zone would either mean “No trucks full stop” or it would be “only vehicles with ad blue allowed”.
So… Let’s see Old Bill pulling up all those brudder vans then, and those old 4x4s that belch smoke because they’re being run on chip fat…
FFS It’s the “no level playing field” aspect to all these daft “compliance” regulations I don’t like.
It makes it a lot easier for large firms to comply (because of flat fees for large fleets) but almost impossible for sole traders to run and expect to make a profit.
How many of us drive cars that use Adblue for example?
I’ve driven old bangers my whole life. It saves me an absolute fortune.
Spending money out on a wasting asset should be an option not bloody well compulsory!
Khaaan is going to make Pre-15 plates illegal to drive in London, as I understand it. That’s ALL 15 plates - not just vans and other commercial vehicles.
Meanwhile, the price of a capital card (train to London with zone 1-6 built in) has mushroomed in price from £8.70 three years back to £24 now.
So… Looks like I have to pay through the nose to do a day trip to London in future.
It’s easier to stop going, and Let London fall to the Non-Brits by the looks of it.
“Loxit or lose it” anyone?
If London thinks it can work without support from the Home Counties - it’s high time we showed them the error of that “Mis-thought.”
Yes, I believe you have indeed misunderstood Khan’s proposal. He is not suggesting making older vehicles illegal - He is suggesting imposing an additional £10 daily charge to drive them in Central London (in essence the same area as the current Congestion Charge) in order to discourage their use. His idea is to apply it to pre-2005 vehicles, not pre-2015. 10 quid extra for the occasional day trip to the Smoke in your old banger? Peanuts (compared to the £000’s you are saving by owning an older car).
Roymondo:
Yes, I believe you have indeed misunderstood Khan’s proposal. He is not suggesting making older vehicles illegal - He is suggesting imposing an additional £10 daily charge to drive them in Central London (in essence the same area as the current Congestion Charge) in order to discourage their use. His idea is to apply it to pre-2005 vehicles, not pre-2015. 10 quid extra for the occasional day trip to the Smoke in your old banger? Peanuts (compared to the £000’s you are saving by owning an older car).
Typical people living in Northampton telling those of us living in or around London what the rules are/should be on our own doorstep.The problem is the LEZ not the ULEZ or the CC zone.In this case often parts of the surrounding counties which the GLC/GLA have nicked and whose residents don’t want to be under Kahn’s,or Livingstone’s before him,control freak rules.On that note why the zb should I need to be under TFL’s rules to drive between Elmbridge and Epsom and Ewell for example or why should anyone even living anywhere along that line be considered as 'Londoner’s within Kahn’s juristiction.Let alone the zb and his GLA cronies having plans to takeover those two Surrey Boroughs among others,just as Kingston let alone the Borough of Surbiton were nicked before.
On that note yes I’d agree with you ‘if’ ‘London’ and with it Kahn’s remit was returned to its previous LCC boundary line.
I think it’s a bit rich that you make a point about me having the temerity to comment even though I do not live in London (although I do drive there several days a week) when you are frequently seen to be lecturing us about matters to do with driving lorries even though AIUI you don’t actually drive one yourself!
Roymondo:
I think it’s a bit rich that you make a point about me having the temerity to comment even though I do not live in London (although I do drive there several days a week) when you are frequently seen to be lecturing us about matters to do with driving lorries even though AIUI you don’t actually drive one yourself!
To be fair we’ve had numerous ministers of Transport who’ve never driven a truck let alone ex truck drivers.
Which is an apples v oranges comparison regarding the points I made regarding those living in Northampton supporting Kahn’s ideas while obviously not even understanding the difference between the LEZ v the CC zones or its effects locally.Such as Kahn hitting anyone with a ‘fine’ ,or telling them what they can drive,for having the nerve to cross ‘his’ bs boundary line to get from Elmbridge to Epsom and Ewell for example.Or in fact going anywhere outside the old LCC boundary.
Having said that I would happily ditch obsolete diesel engines in favour of whole sale switch to LPG for all commercial vehicles and/or petrol for private cars.The difference is unlike Kahn and TFL I’d make it a national no option choice rather than localised money making rip off scam.
“Living in Northampton” eh? My house is just as far from Northampton as Epsom and Ewell (a town whose residents should not, according to you, be considered as Londoners) is from the square mile itself!
See how easy it is to lump people together based on your notion of where they live?
Roymondo:
“Living in Northampton” eh? My house is just as far from Northampton as Epsom and Ewell (a town whose residents should not, according to you, be considered as Londoners) is from the square mile itself!
See how easy it is to lump people together based on your notion of where they live?
It’s obvious that I was referring to Northampton in terms of the County not the Town there being no difference between the two in that regard anyway.Unlike the difference between Epsom and Ewell or Elmbridge or for that matter what ‘should’ still be the Surrey boroughs of Kingston and Surbiton v London.Although yes maybe I should have made that clearer by saying Northamptonshire.
Although what difference that’s supposed to make,regarding the premise that anyone based in Northamptonshire,or its County Town,shouldn’t have any say in the issues of TFL’s boundaries and policies and their effects locally,is anyone’s guess.
On that note I wouldn’t expect any involvement of those based in Northamptonshire,in any hypothetical referendum to have the Borough of Kingston taken out of the GLA and returned to Surrey and thereby out of Kahn’s and TFL’s remit for example.Unlike those living in Surrey and Kingston.
Roymondo:
And I certainly do understand the difference between the LEZ and the CC zone, FWIW.
As I read it the topic and the general premise of Winseer’s comments were/is based on the future direction of the LEZ in total.Not just the ULEZ or CC zones which you referred to.
I don’t have, desire or claim any say in such matters. All I did was to attempt to assist a fellow driver in his understanding of what the signs were referring to and the issues that he might or might not face were he to pass the boundary they mark while driving his lorry (and, later, his car).
Roymondo:
I don’t have, desire or claim any say in such matters. All I did was to attempt to assist a fellow driver in his understanding of what the signs were referring to and the issues that he might or might not face were he to pass the boundary they mark while driving his lorry (and, later, his car).
Great.In which case the general premise,that,with the exception of car use ( so far ),we’re talking about the LEZ area not the CC zone,seems to apply ?.
Roymondo:
I don’t have, desire or claim any say in such matters. All I did was to attempt to assist a fellow driver in his understanding of what the signs were referring to and the issues that he might or might not face were he to pass the boundary they mark while driving his lorry (and, later, his car).
Great.In which case the general premise,that,with the exception of car use ( so far ),we’re talking about the LEZ area not the CC zone,seems to apply ?.
We’ve talked about the “Safer HGV Zone”, the LEZ and the CC Zone.
Roymondo:
I don’t have, desire or claim any say in such matters. All I did was to attempt to assist a fellow driver in his understanding of what the signs were referring to and the issues that he might or might not face were he to pass the boundary they mark while driving his lorry (and, later, his car).
Great.In which case the general premise,that,with the exception of car use ( so far ),we’re talking about the LEZ area not the CC zone,seems to apply ?.
We’ve talked about the “Safer HGV Zone”, the LEZ and the CC Zone.
What’s the connection between the CC zone v the former two.
If you’ve got to pay for non-compliance, then there are going to be a lot of people who drive through not realizing their emmissions are 0.00001ppm over the limit, and presumably they’ll be getting tickets like those who use the dartford crossing without paying now?
Because vehicles from 2015 are “automatically compliant” - that is where I get the implication from that "Khan is effectively banning pre-2015 vehicles.
Let’s face it - apart from with a fresh MOT - when are you otherwise going to know what your emmissions are?
