That must be good for the quality of air, no?
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
86 points (97.8% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 43 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Despite the backlash, expect other cities to copy that.
Some might, some won't. It'd be stupid in Berlin because of the Bezirken (which have people of all incomes), but in Amsterdam (where only rich people live in the centre) it'd be fine.
So, those $16 surely go to offsetting CO2 emissions of that car?
Maybe. But the fee mostly reduces the amount of trips done by car in the first place, causing less CO2 to be emitted in the first place, whoch is even better.
I really hope that less emitted CO2 in that ultra-low zone saves the world! π€
I agree with your sarcasm, these programs should definitely be expanded to more and larger areas.
I would guess that this deals with NO2 or particulate matter, not carbon dioxide. The first two have local effects.
Laws against the poor...
For context, virtually all petrol cars built after 2006 comply with the new rules. There was a scrappage scheme that paid you to get rid of your polluting vehicle.
In Haringey- one of the outer London boroughs affected by the ULEZ expansion 60% of families donβt have cars.
Itβs not the poor who are driving around the borough
Make it "x" percent of your income then, so rich people have to pay an amount that hurts them and poor people have to pay an amount that hurts them, so everyone is hurt and thinks about using public transport and then make public transport on top cheaper for the poor.
Problem is, poor people already don't live in the city and need cars because they come from outside the city where public transport is a joke, but in theory yours is a lot better.
The poor people live in London. The rich people live outside London (although the filthy rich ones live in Mayfair and the like).
Poor people can afford $40000 vehicles, but they canβt afford a $1500 e bike?
Can a E-Bike carry your three children to school? Your groceries for 5 people? Does it protect you from rain and shitty weather?
And 4k for a car... Idk i could get a working car for 1k...
So why do feel there is a need to carry kids to school by car? In inner-city London, no less.
Also, you can get a working car for 1kβ¬$ but that's obviously not the full cost. You need to pay for parking, maintenance, insurance, taxes and, finally, gas.
- Yes it can carry three children if you get a cargo e bike, those cost slightly more, but still cheaper than a car by far.
- Yes that cargo e bike can carry a full sized refrigerator it can carry groceries
- Are you afraid the rain is gonna melt you? I bike to work in the rain and Iβm still alive and well, I just wear a poncho to keep dry.
- Ya you can get a car for 1k but what about the recurring costs of insurance, gas, repairs, etcβ¦
If you have 3 kids and a car, I'm sorry, you chose poverty
Given that money from congestion taxes most often go to fund public transportation, which poorer people use to a larger extent, this is not a law against the poor.
London has one of the best transit systems in the world. A car is not necessary.
If you want to take up a shitload of extra space and pollute everywhere you go with fumes and noise then you get to pay extra. It's a choice, not a necessity.
London, poor people live outside and drive in to work...
My friends we're not talking about America here. There is infrastructure and a social culture beyond "why should government help it's own people fuck you get a car". There are lots of ways to get around by bus or train or bike and they're all way cheaper which is good for poor folks.
In America you'd be right, we make our poor and everyone else pay 10x what they'd spend on transit to pay for a car, car insurance, gas, parking, toll roads and repairs. Then defund every other form of transit, build our cities for cars instead of people and call it Freedom.
Im not talking about muricaland either at least in Germany it is like that as well, and i expect it not to be much different in UK, outside the citys the public transport is a joke.
I'm in the countryside outside Berlin. The buses are okay. Even places in the middle of nowhere have buses.
If you live outside the city, you don't pay taxes in the city.
If you don't pay taxes in the city, it means local taxpayers are paying for YOUR car to wear down roads, add to traffic congestion, make lots of noise and take up space wherever you park it.
This is why there are toll roads, parking fees, fuel taxes and other additional charges (in this case for noise and pollution) in cities.
So if poor people living outside the city REALLY can't use public transit to get to the city (which I doubt tbh I've been all over Europe for work including suburbs and rural areas entirely by train and bus) then they just have to fucking pay for the extra space, pollution and damage they cause with their cars.
Cars don't deserve special treatment so they can fuck up cities even more than they already do. Just look at American cities, they're all roads and parking lots thanks to cars π
[deleted]
This is idiotic. Im not talking about piss poor homeless people inside London, im talking about those that cant afford to live in London and therefore live outside where there is virtually no public transport or it would take 3 times longer than with the car.
[deleted]
That would be the exact opposite of what I've experienced everywhere so far. But if true, ok.
So people who live outside London who arenβt affected? Or people who commute in?
Most of the latter will come in by train (maybe having driven to the. Station.
I agree that is not great but in some places for example in Barcelona have a similar thing, they have exceptions for the low income people or some other situations.
There are low emissions zones in Barcelona?
There are low emissions zones in many cities. I've paid for a sticker for Berlin (no, I don't take my car into Berlin, but I do use the ring road).
Indeed, but I've been to Barcelona a few times and never noticed this kind of zones
Do the poor have cars? Don't they ride the bus?
Or the tube, or trains, or the clipper, or the DLR, or the overground...
There is absolutely no need for a vehicle (aside from work gear/deliveries) for most people (I can think of a few cases, but largely its quite accessible) inside the ULEZ.
Public transport is easier, cheaper, and faster, and would be even more so if there weren't as many cars.
Or the Tube, or the train. London has fantastic public transport. You don't need a car.
I imagine poor people will appreciate better air quality and less noisy cars around too.
London has pretty good public transport, people shouldn't be driving.
view more: next βΊ