In message , at 16:35:56 on Sun, 9 Dec 2018,
Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:23:54 on Sun, 9 Dec 2018,
Recliner remarked:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...don-pollution-
charge-may-be-mayor-sadiq-khans-poll-tax-moment-kf8h2z5hm?shareToken=50
fd0db33f7e78ede69332bfd5bf9172

"the charge, levied on older and more polluting vehicles...
applies to nearly all diesel cars and vans licensed before
September 2015"

In other words, not just "older" ones, but almost all that aren't
effectively brand new. And of course the ones which escape the charge
are precisely the generation where some manufacturers were recently
caught fiddling the testing.

If they were genuinely wanting this charge to persuade people to buy/use
less-polluting vehicles, it should have been set for diesels at the
previous 2009 Euro-5 standard, because not everyone can afford to scrap
their three year old car.

Yes, this is turning into a hefty stealth tax, affecting far more vehicles
and their owners than was previously recognised. As you say, other than the
newest models, practically all diesels would incur the daily tax.

Although I don't drive inside the M25 very much (mainly rat-runs around
accident blockages on the M25) I might have not so willingly recently
bought a Euro-4 diesel car if a Euro-5 one would have been OK according
to the mayor.

Of course, if I hadn't bought that Euro-4, someone else would have done,
so it's not changed the overall pollution potential at all!

He'll certainly be voted out if he doesn't back down in some way
(either delay it, have more exceptions, or focus only on much older
vericles).

Backdating to Euro-5 is the obvious parachute.

Even though I almost never drive inside the North and South Circulars these
days, I realise that the dealer that services my car is just inside it.
That would mean 2-3 days @ £12.50 a day would be incurred any time it needs
work, including the annual service.

Back in the day they were talking about a "congestion charge" for
Cambridge; a bit like the London one, but on a much smaller scale.

One of the reasons I opposed it was that as someone living [then] just
[maybe a few 100yds] outside the cordon, it would have been a stealth
tax on me ever going into the City.

People inside the cordon would not have very often passed the cordon
[outbound] in their normal lives, and hence would rarely have had to
pay.
--
Roland Perry