How will the ULEZ be enforced in ED?

[ed26]

So what happens when Thames Water want to dig up your road and you have to move your car? And what about if you only have to move it a few spaces, so you push it without starting the engine? ;-)

Auto pay is the way forward, as no investigators can accuse you of not having paid the ULEZ charge if the cameras haven't nabbed you. I'd do it for congestion charge if it was free but I think it's ?10 p.a. and I've only driven in the congestion charge zone twice in about five years, both due to taking wrong turnings.

[Spartacus]

Jason painter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was working in marmora re on Friday when an

> electric van drove slowly up the road, it had a

> camera on each corner and had Southwark council

> markings. I can only assume it was registering

> number plates.

If it had council markings then it's unlikely to be for the purpose of ULEZ as that's a TfL initiative and the council have no input

It's possibly more looking for untaxed or no mot vehicles so that the council can fine the owners

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A neighbour has had a letter telling them you have

> a non complaint car and that UELZ is coming.

> SO I suspect it will be ANPRS camera enforcement

> and wont be just boundary entry or exit, and a

> little bit like the TV licensing people saying we

> know you have a non ULEZ complaint vehicle. So

> expect investigators who may record if a non

> complaint vehicles is parked in different places

> and no charge paid.

I had that letter ages ago!

My understanding from what has been said in the thread previously is a) You do not pay the charge unless you are actually driving in the zone and b) You only pay the daily charge once no matter how many times you go in and out of the zone and/or drive within it.

Anyway, it seems sensible to go for automatic payment, then you can see what you have been charged for and why, and if necessary and possible and preferable avoid doing some of those things in future, eg moving your car from one side of your own road to the other ......

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I suspect it will be ANPRS camera enforcement

> and wont be just boundary entry or exit, and a

> little bit like the TV licensing people saying we

> know you have a non ULEZ complaint vehicle. So

> expect investigators who may record if a non

> complaint vehicles is parked in different places

> and no charge paid.

Let's not speculate about stuff if we don't know.

[George Orwell]

As the TFL website says:

An annual ?10 registration charge will apply to each vehicle you add to Auto Pay.

[teetomthomas]

The recently introduced and hugely popular Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have had the effect of not only forcing traffic onto main roads which are often already covered by cameras but also of raising hefty amounts of money from penalty notices issued to drivers unfortunate enough to drive where they oughtn?t.

I wonder if this money will be used to pay for ULEZ enforcement cameras on London?s quieter roads within the Zone and we will see those elegant LTN planters eventually withdrawn.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

That's a conspiracy theory I haven't heard before - that LTNs are designed to fund ULEZ!

ULEZ: announced by Mayor Boris Johnson in 2013.

ULEZ expansion: announced by Mayor Sadiq Khan in 2018, with plans for camera network expansion.

Emergency Active Travel Fund: announced by Tory UK government in May 2020.

LTN: implemented by Southwark in June 2020.

I suppose of course you could imagine that Southwark Council, the UK government and the Chinese government have been conspiring since 2018 to launch COVID on an unsuspecting population so that TfL could buy some cameras.

[teetomthomas]

I suppose of course you could imagine that

Southwark Council, the UK government and the

Chinese government have been conspiring since 2018

to launch COVID on an unsuspecting population so

that TfL could buy some cameras.

What are you talking about?

[Spartacus]

Or smoking up in the hills Billy ?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

teetomthomas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What are you talking about?

I'm trying to think of how far you would have to go for your conspiracy theory that LTNs are a plot to pay for ULEZ cameras to make sense. The answer is: very far indeed.

[edbloke]

A cynic may find a correlation between installing LTN?s in the area, in advance of the ULEZ expanding, so as to coerce drivers onto a reduced road network, thereby making fewer cameras more effective.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Put down the tinfoil hat. LTNs are enforced by cameras. It wouldn't make any sense for Southwark (which doesn't operate ULEZ and whose LTN came years after the ULEZ expansion and camera plan) to channel traffic away from roads that are covered by cameras to streets that are not necessarily covered by cameras.

Amazing that some people seem to simultaneously believe that Southwark is completely incompetent AND ALSO capable of pulling off a multiyear conspiracy.

#SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

[teetomthomas]

Actually it?s aluminium.

I?d hardly call it a conspiracy theory. Nor can I agree that it?s too far fetched. And why bring the Chinese government into it?!

TFL were on their uppers in the early part of the pandemic with their revenue catastrophically reduced. With between ??90m and ?130m? required to fund the ULEZ ( not to mention the scrappage scheme) they had to come up with something. Let?s not try to deny that LTN?s, not just in Southwark but across London have been highly successful in raising piles of cash.

Your timeline was useful to a degree, but if you can show me that LTN?s had been discussed in the London Assembly prior to the pandemic and where this fits chronologically I will take that on board.

If the ULEZ is successful in its objectives to reduce traffic as well as pollution, then the necessity for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recedes, and those planters can indeed be removed.

I will thank you for your prior comments on this thread, they are informative and helpful . But I am disappointed when I hear anyone cry ?conspiracy theory? and ? tinfoil hat? on an otherwise open and respectful forum thread. I feel it rather lowers the tone in an environment where people are allowed to add to the discussion.

I wish you well, and hope that you are enjoying the sunshine. Unless of course you don?t like the heat. I hear it will rain tomorrow.

[Spartacus]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Put down the tinfoil hat. LTNs are enforced by

> cameras. It wouldn't make any sense for Southwark

> (which doesn't operate ULEZ and whose LTN came

> years after the ULEZ expansion and camera plan) to

> channel traffic away from roads that are covered

> by cameras to streets that are not necessarily

> covered by cameras.

>

> Amazing that some people seem to simultaneously

> believe that Southwark is completely incompetent

> AND ALSO capable of pulling off a multiyear

> conspiracy.

> #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

To add to your conspiracy theory DKHB, maybe Southwark's hit squad have also nobbled the posties https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2228764 so that any consultation information or PCNs is delivered late...

And the leader of the council also appeared in his UFO over southwark towers to preach his message of build on greens and pollute poor people's roads....

Jasus you have an active imagination at times

[Penguin68]

Just for clarity - revenue (fines and charges) from the Southwark PCNs and CPZs (reflecting those who park or travel outwith Southwark regulations - i.e. parking zones and LTNs - goes to Southwark. Revenues from the congestion charge and ULEZ (and fines additionally arising) go to the Mayor - who may use these to fund TFL - although I don't think TFL are a formal party to the revenue collection, just a beneficiary at the Mayor's whim. I do not know whether the Mayor has access to pictures taken by Southwark enforcement cameras - or vice versa - but I suspect not.

I believe it is most unlikely that these two authorities (Mayor and Borough) will act in concert over this. Indeed joined-up planning (viz Southwark's attacks on car usage locally without reflecting very poor - comparatively - provision of public transport locally) is a prime example of a lack of joined-up thinking.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

teetomthomas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the ULEZ is successful in its objectives to

> reduce traffic as well as pollution, then the

> necessity for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recedes,

> and those planters can indeed be removed.

I think we'd all be happy if the ULEZ expansion is that successful.

[peckhamside]

I think they will generate the letters from the vehicle registration data base? So nothing to do with cameras and sweeps of the streets.