In article , d () wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:46:42 -0500
wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:56:07 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:01:36 on Sat, 16 Jul
2016, d remarked:

I thought Khan only wanted to extend the clean air zone to the north
and south circulars, not the cc zone:


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...han-to-double-
size-londons-clean-air-zone-pollution

Thats even worse since anyone who lives inside the north circ and has
a car older than 10 years (I think) won't be able to drive it!

It's a fee for any diesel that doesn't meet the emission standards
introduced ten years ago. Older ones might, if the manufacturers
fitted a compliant engine earlier than absolutely necessary.

There are a lot of cars owned by people living in inner london that are
more than 10 years old, usually because they can't afford a newer one.
So all Kahns policy will achieve is to push the lesser well off off the
roads if they can't afford his tax. Sorry, fee.

I imagine if it is introduced the fines will simply be ignored and
the courts will end up with a backlog of so many cases they'll simply
dump the lot and ask him to rethink.

Since they're also the main victims of the excessive pollution, it seems
more reasonable than some taxes.

While I'll agree something needs to be done about the pollution in
London, essentially outlawing cars that that will affect the less
well off is not the way to do it. The millionaire in his 8mpg 2016
Lambo isn't going to be
affected but the single mum in a low paid job (for example) driving a
2000 micra will be. Its disgusting.

Still, Labour have been showing their disdain for the working classes for
years so I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise.

If the pollution is reduced then the residents, even the poor ones, will be
better off health-wise.

Anyway, isn't the tax on diesels only? People can always get an old
petrol-engined car as I have.

--
Colin Rosenstiel