W3526602 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Hi, The following was copied from a Land Rover forum, so I'm not sure if it only affects LRs or if other vehicles are going to be hit too. Does anybody know? 602 New ‘Low Emission Zone’ will penalise owners of diesel Land Rovers registered between 1973 and 2001 London’s new Low Emission Zone (LEZ) which comes into force in 2008 will affect Land Rover owners. Owners who drive diesel versions of Series III Land Rovers, Ninety, One Ten and Defenders and registered between 1973 and 2001 will have to pay £100 per day for the privilege of driving in London. And this isn’t the centre of London, this is all of London, including the suburbs. Basically, if you head inwards from the M25 and you drive one of the above vehicles, you will have to pay. Although the LEZ comes into force next year, Land Rovers won’t fall within the rules until October 2010, when your vehicle will either have to meet the emissions standard, or you’ll pay the charge. The good news is that you can modify your Land Rover to meet the standard by fitting pollution abatement equipment. The bad news is that it will cost you around £2200 + vat. The equipment manufacturers, who haven’t even designed the Land Rover versions yet, don’t think that there will be that much demand for the filters from Land Rover owners. ‘Why fit something costing £2500 to a vehicle worth not much more?’ said one. And, of course, the cost of the filter isn’t the only issue. Your insurance will probably go up too. If you’ve an old diesel Series III worth, say £1000, you’ll be trebling its value – or at least the amount it is worth to you. The trouble is that the street value of the Land Rover won’t increase with the amount spent on the filter. If the vehicle is stolen or written off, you are unlikely to get back the money you have paid on the filter, let alone the value of the Land Rover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 It's another of the effects of the LEZ discussed recently on this thread - http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8275&posts=29 Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted August 2, 2007 Author Share Posted August 2, 2007 Hi, "I done a Google" for LOW EMISSION ZONE, got several hits. It seems that motor caravans will be hit from next year. Daily penalty will be £200. Red Ken indicates that he would rather vehicles complied than be penalised. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 W3526602 - 2007-08-02 8:01 AM It seems that motor caravans will be hit from next year. MHs exceeding 12 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight will be affected from February and those between 3.5 and 12 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight from July. Lighter vehicles will not be affected until October 2010. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingpete Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Could result in the CCC sites in SE London to close down ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Maybe I'm in the minority here on this issue, and it might stir up a hornets nest - but I say GOOD. Unless as humans (particularly in the developed West) we ALL do a helluva lot to clean up our act, there ain't a long term future for any of us. We've been raping the planet to fuel our own greed for a couple of hundred years now. Appealling to people's morals just doesn't work - the only way to get effective action is to hit the worst polluters, HARD, in the pocket, to make it cheaper to pollute less than to continue unchanged. OK, so we could debate ad nauseum the details on which are the most polluting vehicles, etc etc - but we simply CANNOT continue with the fossil fuel guzzling, carbon dioxide emitting lifestyle that we've greedily enjoyed for the past century. The proposed London charge is just one tiny example of how things HAVE to change - and in aggregate all such types of pollution penalties are gonna have to hurt a lot to actually force people to change their thinking from "me, now" to "the futue of all life on this entire planet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catinou Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 There is an article about this in the latest caravan club magazine. Depends on emmissions Euro 4 compliant (eg New Fiat Base) will be ok even after the dates mentioned. I don't have the mag with me but will look it up when I get home. B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 What a load of tosh , your obviously a person who doesnt believe in evolution , or the fact that all this so called global warming happens in cycles, [ proven ] or that the last lot of floods were due to the gulf stream moving out of kilter [ proven ] wake up mate, in victorian times there was more polution than ever , and still in years after that no global warming , why ? because everyone was too busy living and getting on with life than to worry what scientists said , after all they only know what happens in test tubes. Just wise up look at history , youll see its all happened before . geologically and otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 hmmmm.... I will avoid the temptation to get into the overarching argument, but I do have a thought or two about schemes such as this ------- whilst they may be well intentioned, may not provide all the benefit that they promise. It may actually be more beneficial to let older vehicles live out their remaining lives ‘gracefully’ Consider this – In 2010 I own a vehicle with a pre Euro 4 engine with which I am otherwise entirely happy, and would otherwise plan to keep for another 5 years. I have the choice of spending upwards of £2k on updating the vehicle, or selling it to someone who doesn’t have the restrictions and buying a newer compliant vehicle. Supposing I opt for the latter … Would the amount of emissions that my older vehicle would have output over its remaining life (5 years), exceed the amount of emissions that the manufacture and usage of the newer vehicle outputs over that same 5 years? Such an assessment would of course be far more complex, as there are many more factors involved. I don't know the answer, but I doubt that the overall impact is considered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catinou Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 London Mayor = Ken Livingstone - say no more! :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 GLOBAL WARMING is happening. The average temperature throughout planet earth has risen over the last 20 years at a totally unprecented rate - i.e., faster than ever before in history except when caused by extreme events (such as meteorite collision). The only things therefore left to argue about are : - why? Is it just a normal cycle or is it partly due to man's industrious use of earth's resources? - what should we do about it - if anything. Yes, you can look back and see periods of warmth (and cold) in history. When you do so, you find countries which are now habitable were desert, such as The American midwest. What scares me is the sheer rate at which the global average is increasing. It's already near 2 degrees. So yes, it makes sense to do something about it. But let's be sensible: firing shots at easy targets like air travel (3% of current emissions - 5% by 2012) solves nothing. There are only two targets that make any sense: - power stations, the biggest single source of greenhouse gases - and China is opening a new coal fired station every 10 days! The only solution in the nest 20 years is nuclear power - until the scientists make fission rather than fusion work. - road transport, the second biggest source of CO2. It makes sense to tackle this because, whether we do or not, we'll be running out of price-affordable oil within the next 20 years or so. (I know we've heard this before, but this time it's true - oil is a limited resource and even if it's 50 years, what right have we to use up our childrens' and grandchildrens' shares? - oil is far more valuable to us as a source of plastics, etc., than simply to burn) Mel E ==== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Meldrew Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I agree with Mel, but I’d go one step further and nuke India as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catinou Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 That's offensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g4oip Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Our country emits under 2% of the worlds carbon dioxide so hitting ourselves over the head with more cost will achieve nothing - dont fool yourselves - get real. Agree with burning oil for fuel grow it. My bro. has been using rape seed oil for 8 years and on test his emissions of particulates is ZERO.If you want clean air without LEZ's change the fuel.QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vernon B Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Putting aside whether we are experiencing global warming and that human beings are responsible, this plan once again shows how gullible we are. If the powers that be really believe that diesel vehicles produced prior to 2002 are threatening the world than they should have the guts to ban those vehicles from the road. Concurrently with that they should compensate owners of those vehicles who, prior to so called "scientists" telling us that the world is doomed, made their purchase in good faith . I'm sure that such compensation would be less than the costs of running the LEZ monitoring system. Of course they won't do that because they prefer to deal in gesture politics and schemes of this kind (just like Brown's hike in airport taxes last September) are just perfect for them. By introducing the scheme it creates the impression that they're taking action; it has the added benefit of increasing tax revenues; and by the time it's shown be totally irrelevant, we've forgotten about it. They're smart we're dumb. Vernon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Its the british way , in business etc etc , youve got to be seen to be doing then you make money from it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 g4oip - 2007-08-02 1:12 PM Our country emits under 2% of the worlds carbon dioxide so hitting ourselves over the head with more cost will achieve nothing - dont fool yourselves - get real. Agree with burning oil for fuel grow it. My bro. has been using rape seed oil for 8 years and on test his emissions of particulates is ZERO.If you want clean air without LEZ's change the fuel.QED. Does H.M.Customs know? £££££££££££ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Mel E - 2007-08-02 12:14 PM - power stations, the biggest single source of greenhouse gases - and China is opening a new coal fired station every 10 days! The only solution in the nest 20 years is nuclear power - until the scientists make fission rather than fusion work. - road transport, the second biggest source of CO2. It makes sense to tackle this because, whether we do or not, we'll be running out of price-affordable oil within the next 20 years or so. (I know we've heard this before, but this time it's true - oil is a limited resource and even if it's 50 years, what right have we to use up our childrens' and grandchildrens' shares? - oil is far more valuable to us as a source of plastics, etc., than simply to burn) Mel E ==== Hi Mel, This is only true if you accept that CO2 is the cause. There is a great deal of evidence that proves otherwise, for instance the main reason that the latest IPCC report was embargoed and then rewritten (in true Tony Blair Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier style) after being released was because it proved that CO2 increase actually followed Temperature increase not the other way round as we are led to believe. Think about it Co2 increase lags temperature increase this is a fact that is proven. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted August 2, 2007 Author Share Posted August 2, 2007 Hi, I think the carbon footprint of a person is greater than that of a vehicle. Therefore making babies is doing more to destroy the planet than driving a car. What difference does it make if we burn all the oil in 20 years or 100 years. Probably not a lot, but if us plebs can't afford it, there will be more for the fat cats. I believe the most economical use of oil is to power a small generator to charge a battery on a vehicle. Power is used intermitantly, but is produced steadily so economically. Yank tanks return about 80 to 100mpg using this system. Actually, for short journies you can run off a charge from your house supply, and tow a trailer mounted generator for longer journeys. Electric cars are (were?) tax exempt....but only if the batteries are not charged by an on car generator. Presumably that includes solar cells on the roof? My complaint is at the size of the penalty for taking a small van into the LEZ, the same as for a pantechnicon? If these vehicles are that hienious, they should be banned altogether, with penalty points for failing to comply with a traffic sign. How can anybody who drives a camper van describe this legislation as "good". OK, I can agree to a point, but the point is too sharp and too close, and there has to be a better way. Do away with the motor car, and you are risking the return to the age of slavery and serfdom. Discuss! 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g4oip Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 As far as I know HM customs dont operate in Europe. Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I subscribe to the Clarkson Scool of Motoring. Did you see them take three Toyota HiLux to the North Pole? As clarky said "Global warming, we,ve barely scratched the surface" But the previous posting is perfectly correct, the problem on this planet is too many people and numbers that continue to increase at a non supportable rate because we don,t put enough away for our retirement and governments need more people paying more taxes to provide pensions.. Thats enough!!! C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmick Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Don't think the Caravan Club has it quite right in their latest issue. There will be a couple of pages on LEZ and its effects on motorcaravanners in the next issue of MMM (out Aug 23) - or so i'm told anyhow! madmick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 g4oip - 2007-08-02 5:28 PM As far as I know HM customs dont operate in Europe. Get real. Sorry i meant H.M Customs and excise , who check these things ,[ just in case you dont know] .and i thought he was talking about this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Does this mean that after 2010 (not that far away !) 2001 and earlier diesel powered motorhomes will be 'cheap as chips' ???? and as the Goalposts get moved slowly tighter in the end NO-One will be able to afford our lovely Pastime/way of life ?? Enjoy your 2007 Motorhomes while you can, but many,many others will be priced out of the equation before you.....but for how long ?? Where London first 'tests the water' others follow,especially as there is money to be made. Forget the 'Save the planet' retoric. This is about Money ! >:-) >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I have not looked into this much after seeing my 'old smoky' is exempt because its petrol, but I think its not co2 emissions but particlelate emissions that are being targeted, i.e. its not save the planet but save the citizens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.