This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011 on a
london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than 2016 had to
pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs contractors, they can
pollute as much as they like no doubt and get paid to do it.

On 23/12/2023 16:54, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011 on a
> london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than 2016 had to
> pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs contractors, they can
> pollute as much as they like no doubt and get paid to do it.
>

How do you know they don't have to pay?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
news:um73br$2505h$1@dont-email.me...
> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011 on a
> london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than 2016 had
> to
> pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs contractors, they
> can
> pollute as much as they like no doubt and get paid to do it.
>

The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185

--
DAS

In message <um7ns9$289s2$3@dont-email.me>, at 22:44:20 on Sat, 23 Dec
2023, D A Stocks <nospam@nospam.com> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>news:um73br$2505h$1@dont-email.me...

>> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011
>>on a london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than
>>2016 had to pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs
>>contractors, they can pollute as much as they like no doubt and get
>>paid to do it.
>
>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185

As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.

However: "Some have wondered how these large, fuel guzzling and, in some
cases, more than a decade old vehicles do not incur ultra low emission
zone (ULEZ) fines" is a little wide of the mark, because you'd only get
fined if you didn't pay the ULEZ *charge*.

TfL apparently agrees that some of its fleet (such as rent-a-wrecks
used for driver training) *might* not be ULEZ compliant, so presumably
the operators of those *will* be paying the daily charge. Which will be
peanuts compared to the other costs of running such a driver training
course.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 17:18:42 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 23/12/2023 16:54, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011 on a
>> london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than 2016 had to
>> pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs contractors, they can
>> pollute as much as they like no doubt and get paid to do it.
>>
>
>How do you know they don't have to pay?

I can't imagine a private company would operate them if they had to pay
a charge every day especially given they're probably not very economic
compared to a modern bus either.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 22:44:20 -0000
"D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>news:um73br$2505h$1@dont-email.me...
>> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011 on a
>> london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than 2016 had
>> to
>> pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs contractors, they
>> can
>> pollute as much as they like no doubt and get paid to do it.
>>
>
>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185

Given there was a very distinct haze coming out of the exhaust of one of them
the chances of it being emmisions compliant I suspect are pretty low.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <um7ns9$289s2$3@dont-email.me>, at 22:44:20 on Sat, 23 Dec
>2023, D A Stocks <nospam@nospam.com> remarked:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>>news:um73br$2505h$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011
>>>on a london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than
>>>2016 had to pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs
>>>contractors, they can pollute as much as they like no doubt and get
>>>paid to do it.
>>
>>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>
>As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.

A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million miles?
Highly unlikely.

>TfL apparently agrees that some of its fleet (such as rent-a-wrecks
>used for driver training) *might* not be ULEZ compliant, so presumably
>the operators of those *will* be paying the daily charge. Which will be
>peanuts compared to the other costs of running such a driver training
>course.

Really?

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/new-tighter-lez-standards-for-h
gvs-in-london

"buses and coaches must now meet Euro VI (NOx and PM) emissions standards
or pay a daily charge of up to 300"

I wouldn't call 300 quid peanuts. Thats probably a significant portion of the
days fare collection, possibly more on a sunday.

In message <um9hoo$2k0ra$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:24 on Sun, 24 Dec
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <um7ns9$289s2$3@dont-email.me>, at 22:44:20 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>2023, D A Stocks <nospam@nospam.com> remarked:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>>>news:um73br$2505h$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>> This afternoon I noticed 2 single deckers , one 2012 the other 2011
>>>>on a london bus route. Last time I looked diesel vehicles older than
>>>>2016 had to pay the charge. But I guess it doesn't apply for TfLs
>>>>contractors, they can pollute as much as they like no doubt and get
>>>>paid to do it.
>>>
>>>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>>
>>As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>>2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>>mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.
>
>A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million miles?
>Highly unlikely.

Clearly, not all the pre-2016 buses meet that description (trivially,
because a 2015 bus is only 8yrs old.

But do read the linked article, there's a dear [I can't believe I'm
calling a chatbot 'dear']. It explains what technical measures they've
implemented to make many of the older ones compliant.

>>TfL apparently agrees that some of its fleet (such as rent-a-wrecks
>>used for driver training) *might* not be ULEZ compliant, so presumably
>>the operators of those *will* be paying the daily charge. Which will be
>>peanuts compared to the other costs of running such a driver training
>>course.
>
>Really?
>
>https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/new-tighter-lez-standar
>ds-for-h gvs-in-london
>
>"buses and coaches must now meet Euro VI (NOx and PM) emissions standards
>or pay a daily charge of up to 300"
>
>I wouldn't call 300 quid peanuts. Thats probably a significant portion of the
>days fare collection, possibly more on a sunday.

It might surprise you, they don't collect fares on driver-training
buses.

Anyway, depending on how "up to" £300 it is, a driver training course is
currently around £450/day, but not every day is "on the road" (because
there's theory to study and be examined on, and quite a bit of the
driving is on private property not public roads.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 07:33:23 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <um9hoo$2k0ra$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:24 on Sun, 24 Dec
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>>>
>>>As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>>>2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>>>mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.
>>
>>A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million miles?
>>Highly unlikely.
>
>Clearly, not all the pre-2016 buses meet that description (trivially,
>because a 2015 bus is only 8yrs old.
>
>But do read the linked article, there's a dear [I can't believe I'm
>calling a chatbot 'dear']. It explains what technical measures they've
>implemented to make many of the older ones compliant.

I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant so can a car but we weren't
given that choice. Unless its TfL spin and BS which is far more likely
especially given the crap that comes out the exhaust pipe of these old buses
which barely looks Euro anything compliant.

>>I wouldn't call 300 quid peanuts. Thats probably a significant portion of the
>>days fare collection, possibly more on a sunday.
>
>It might surprise you, they don't collect fares on driver-training
>buses.

I'm not sure where you go the idea these were training buses. They were both
in service buses on the 298 route based at Potters Bar garage.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
news:ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 07:33:23 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <um9hoo$2k0ra$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:24 on Sun, 24 Dec
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>>>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>>>>
>>>>As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>>>>2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>>>>mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.
>>>
>>>A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million
>>>miles?
>>>Highly unlikely.
>>
>>Clearly, not all the pre-2016 buses meet that description (trivially,
>>because a 2015 bus is only 8yrs old.
>>
>>But do read the linked article, there's a dear [I can't believe I'm
>>calling a chatbot 'dear']. It explains what technical measures they've
>>implemented to make many of the older ones compliant.
>
> I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant
This is a fairly common thing that is economically feasible

> so can a car but we weren't given that choice.
This is *not* likely to happen. Reasons are given here:
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/service/clean-vehicle-retrofit-accreditation-scheme/

--
DAS

On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:56:02 -0000
"D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>news:ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 07:33:23 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <um9hoo$2k0ra$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:24 on Sun, 24 Dec
>>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>>>>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>>>>>
>>>>>As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>>>>>2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>>>>>mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.
>>>>
>>>>A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million
>>>>miles?
>>>>Highly unlikely.
>>>
>>>Clearly, not all the pre-2016 buses meet that description (trivially,
>>>because a 2015 bus is only 8yrs old.
>>>
>>>But do read the linked article, there's a dear [I can't believe I'm
>>>calling a chatbot 'dear']. It explains what technical measures they've
>>>implemented to make many of the older ones compliant.
>>
>> I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant
>This is a fairly common thing that is economically feasible
>
>> so can a car but we weren't given that choice.
>This is *not* likely to happen. Reasons are given here:
>https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/service/clean-vehicle-retrofit-accreditation-s
>cheme/

So IOW politics not mechanics and ickle Sadiq gets to keep coining it.

On 27/12/2023 16:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:56:02 -0000
> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>> news:ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 07:33:23 +0000
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <um9hoo$2k0ra$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:24 on Sun, 24 Dec
>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>>>>>> https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>>>>>> 2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>>>>>> mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million
>>>>> miles?
>>>>> Highly unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, not all the pre-2016 buses meet that description (trivially,
>>>> because a 2015 bus is only 8yrs old.
>>>>
>>>> But do read the linked article, there's a dear [I can't believe I'm
>>>> calling a chatbot 'dear']. It explains what technical measures they've
>>>> implemented to make many of the older ones compliant.
>>>
>>> I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant
>> This is a fairly common thing that is economically feasible
>>
>>> so can a car but we weren't given that choice.
>> This is *not* likely to happen. Reasons are given here:
>> https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/service/clean-vehicle-retrofit-accreditation-s
>> cheme/
>
> So IOW politics not mechanics and ickle Sadiq gets to keep coining it.
>
>

It's neither politics or mechanics but economics. There's an economic
case for producing conversion kits for buses bit not for cars. As the
page points out, if you've got a diesel car that isn't compliant, even
if a conversion kit is available, it would be cheaper to buy a second
hand petrol car of the smae vintage which would be compliant.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 18:59:29 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 27/12/2023 16:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> So IOW politics not mechanics and ickle Sadiq gets to keep coining it.
>>
>>
>
>It's neither politics or mechanics but economics. There's an economic
>case for producing conversion kits for buses bit not for cars. As the
>page points out, if you've got a diesel car that isn't compliant, even
>if a conversion kit is available, it would be cheaper to buy a second
>hand petrol car of the smae vintage which would be compliant.

I think you're rather missing the point of car ownership for some people.
I've looked after my reasonably upmarket car and kept it in good nick since new
and for a diesel the engine is barely run in. I don't want to trade it in for
some 2nd or 3rd hand knackered hatchback thats had god knows what done to it
and in it by other people.

For some of us there's more to a car than just a device to get from A to B
just as a house is more than just a roof to keep the rain off.

In message <ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:04 on Tue, 26 Dec
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 07:33:23 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <um9hoo$2k0ra$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:24 on Sun, 24 Dec
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:13:02 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>The rules are based on emmisions, not the age of the vehicle:
>>>>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/how-london-buses-ulez-compliant-27421185
>>>>
>>>>As usual, Muttley has got it completely backwards. Cars registered from
>>>>2016 onwards are assumed to be compliant (and eventually TfL agreed that
>>>>mine is), but older vehicles could be compliant.
>>>
>>>A worn out 12 year old bus that has probably literally done a million miles?
>>>Highly unlikely.
>>
>>Clearly, not all the pre-2016 buses meet that description (trivially,
>>because a 2015 bus is only 8yrs old.
>>
>>But do read the linked article, there's a dear [I can't believe I'm
>>calling a chatbot 'dear']. It explains what technical measures they've
>>implemented to make many of the older ones compliant.
>
>I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant so can a car but we weren't
>given that choice.

Again, your lack of engineering experience is showing.

>Unless its TfL spin and BS which is far more likely especially given
>the crap that comes out the exhaust pipe of these old buses which
>barely looks Euro anything compliant.

Which old buses?

>>>I wouldn't call 300 quid peanuts. Thats probably a significant portion of the
>>>days fare collection, possibly more on a sunday.
>>
>>It might surprise you, they don't collect fares on driver-training
>>buses.
>
>I'm not sure where you go the idea these were training buses.

From the article cited earler.

>They were both
>in service buses on the 298 route based at Potters Bar garage.

In which case they'll be ULEZ compliant, whatever they "look like" to
you.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:04 on Tue, 26 Dec
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant so can a car but we weren't
>>given that choice.
>
>Again, your lack of engineering experience is showing.

Oh please. Most diesel cars with a new DPF and ad-blue system could easily
make Euro 6.

>>Unless its TfL spin and BS which is far more likely especially given
>>the crap that comes out the exhaust pipe of these old buses which
>>barely looks Euro anything compliant.
>
>Which old buses?

Are you Roland or ChatGPT? There seems to be an odd disconnect in your
comprehension even between sections of the same post , never mind different
ones.

>>I'm not sure where you go the idea these were training buses.
>
> From the article cited earler.

Who cares about some article FFS? I was talking about in service buses.

>>They were both
>>in service buses on the 298 route based at Potters Bar garage.
>
>In which case they'll be ULEZ compliant, whatever they "look like" to
>you.

My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
rules are more flexible than anyone realised.

On 29/12/2023 10:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:04 on Tue, 26 Dec
>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant so can a car but we weren't
>>> given that choice.
>>
>> Again, your lack of engineering experience is showing.
>
> Oh please. Most diesel cars with a new DPF and ad-blue system could easily
> make Euro 6.
>
>>> Unless its TfL spin and BS which is far more likely especially given
>>> the crap that comes out the exhaust pipe of these old buses which
>>> barely looks Euro anything compliant.
>>
>> Which old buses?
>
> Are you Roland or ChatGPT? There seems to be an odd disconnect in your
> comprehension even between sections of the same post , never mind different
> ones.
>
>>> I'm not sure where you go the idea these were training buses.
>>
>> From the article cited earler.
>
> Who cares about some article FFS? I was talking about in service buses.
>
>>> They were both
>>> in service buses on the 298 route based at Potters Bar garage.
>>
>> In which case they'll be ULEZ compliant, whatever they "look like" to
>> you.
>
> My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
> if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
> rules are more flexible than anyone realised.
>

Have you asked the main dealers for your vehicle whether they have a
compliance kit for it?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:39:43 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29/12/2023 10:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
>> My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
>> if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
>> rules are more flexible than anyone realised.
>>
>
>Have you asked the main dealers for your vehicle whether they have a
>compliance kit for it?

There are no main dealers for my car any more as they pulled out of the UK
market about 10 years ago.

Right now I'm in a quandry as to whether to sell it to Motorway and get
around 1600 quid for it but knowing it'll probably go to a good home elsewhere
in the UK, or do the ULEZ scrappage scheme to get 2000 + 250 quid scrap value
and watch a car in good condition with only 100K miles on it go for scrap.

On 29/12/2023 11:18, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:39:43 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/12/2023 10:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
>>> My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
>>> if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
>>> rules are more flexible than anyone realised.
>>>
>>
>> Have you asked the main dealers for your vehicle whether they have a
>> compliance kit for it?
>
> There are no main dealers for my car any more as they pulled out of the UK
> market about 10 years ago.
>
> Right now I'm in a quandry as to whether to sell it to Motorway and get
> around 1600 quid for it but knowing it'll probably go to a good home elsewhere
> in the UK, or do the ULEZ scrappage scheme to get 2000 + 250 quid scrap value
> and watch a car in good condition with only 100K miles on it go for scrap.
>

Or Ukraine
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:03:59 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29/12/2023 11:18, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:39:43 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29/12/2023 10:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
>>>> My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
>>>> if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
>>>> rules are more flexible than anyone realised.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you asked the main dealers for your vehicle whether they have a
>>> compliance kit for it?
>>
>> There are no main dealers for my car any more as they pulled out of the UK
>> market about 10 years ago.
>>
>> Right now I'm in a quandry as to whether to sell it to Motorway and get
>> around 1600 quid for it but knowing it'll probably go to a good home
>elsewhere
>> in the UK, or do the ULEZ scrappage scheme to get 2000 + 250 quid scrap value
>
>> and watch a car in good condition with only 100K miles on it go for scrap.
>>
>
>Or Ukraine

I heard it was only 4x4s they wanted. Mine is a standard 2 wheel drive saloon.
It would be great if it did end up there but given it would cost Khans evil
elves time and money to sort it out I won't hold my breath. ULEZ is all about
cash not the enviroment otherwise scrapping perfectly good vehicles before EOL
wouldn't even be considered.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:03:59 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 29/12/2023 11:18, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> >> Right now I'm in a quandry as to whether to sell it to Motorway and get
> >> around 1600 quid for it but knowing it'll probably go to a good home
> >> elsewhere in the UK, or do the ULEZ scrappage scheme to get 2000 + 250
> >> quid scrap value and watch a car in good condition with only 100K miles
> >> on it go for scrap.
> >>
> >
> >Or Ukraine

"Recent discussions with officials in Kyiv have confirmed that only certain
vehicle types are suitable and desirable, namely heavy-duty models. Kyiv
has confirmed that regular cars and vans, which make up the vast majority of
vehicles being scrapped under the ULEZ scrappage scheme, are not suitable
for their current needs."
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/sending-ulez-non-compliant-vehicles-ukraine-1

> I heard it was only 4x4s they wanted. Mine is a standard 2 wheel drive saloon.
> It would be great if it did end up there but given it would cost Khans evil
> elves time and money to sort it out I won't hold my breath. ULEZ is all about
> cash not the enviroment otherwise scrapping perfectly good vehicles before EOL
> wouldn't even be considered.

How is it about cash when they will pay you 2K to scrap your car, which is
more than it's worth?

(if you reckon you could get more than £1600 stick it on Autotrader or ebay)

Theo

In message <umm6pu$q1cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:03 on Fri, 29 Dec
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:04 on Tue, 26 Dec
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant so can a car but we weren't
>>>given that choice.
>>
>>Again, your lack of engineering experience is showing.
>
>Oh please. Most diesel cars with a new DPF and ad-blue system could easily
>make Euro 6.
>
>>>Unless its TfL spin and BS which is far more likely especially given
>>>the crap that comes out the exhaust pipe of these old buses which
>>>barely looks Euro anything compliant.
>>
>>Which old buses?
>
>Are you Roland or ChatGPT? There seems to be an odd disconnect in your
>comprehension even between sections of the same post , never mind different
>ones.
>
>>>I'm not sure where you go the idea these were training buses.
>>
>> From the article cited earler.
>
>Who cares about some article FFS? I was talking about in service buses.
>
>>>They were both
>>>in service buses on the 298 route based at Potters Bar garage.
>>
>>In which case they'll be ULEZ compliant, whatever they "look like" to
>>you.
>
>My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
>if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
>rules are more flexible than anyone realised.

I think I'm to avoid wasting any more time on this groundhog thread.
--
Roland Perry

On 29 Dec 2023 21:53:09 +0000 (GMT)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> I heard it was only 4x4s they wanted. Mine is a standard 2 wheel drive
>saloon.
>> It would be great if it did end up there but given it would cost Khans evil
>> elves time and money to sort it out I won't hold my breath. ULEZ is all about
>
>> cash not the enviroment otherwise scrapping perfectly good vehicles before
>EOL
>> wouldn't even be considered.
>
>How is it about cash when they will pay you 2K to scrap your car, which is
>more than it's worth?

He was forced to do that by the government. Left to his own devices Khunt
wouldn't have coughed up a penny. And if you don't think it was about money
why did he choose a cut off date of late 2015 for diesels? An 8 year old diesel
car or van is barely run in and he knew perfectly well he'd coin it particularly
with the number of traders vans that wouldn't comply as they tend to run them
into the ground before replacement.

>(if you reckon you could get more than £1600 stick it on Autotrader or ebay)

Feck that. Short of someone turning up with a suitcase of cash there's no
way in hell I'd sell it privately. Far too risky particularly here in London.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 08:01:37 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <umm6pu$q1cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:03 on Fri, 29 Dec
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:29 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <ume2qk$3dve6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:04 on Tue, 26 Dec
>>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>I did. And if a bus can be made Euro 6 compliant so can a car but we weren't
>
>>>>given that choice.
>>>
>>>Again, your lack of engineering experience is showing.
>>
>>Oh please. Most diesel cars with a new DPF and ad-blue system could easily
>>make Euro 6.
>>
>>>>Unless its TfL spin and BS which is far more likely especially given
>>>>the crap that comes out the exhaust pipe of these old buses which
>>>>barely looks Euro anything compliant.
>>>
>>>Which old buses?
>>
>>Are you Roland or ChatGPT? There seems to be an odd disconnect in your
>>comprehension even between sections of the same post , never mind different
>>ones.
>>
>>>>I'm not sure where you go the idea these were training buses.
>>>
>>> From the article cited earler.
>>
>>Who cares about some article FFS? I was talking about in service buses.
>>
>>>>They were both
>>>>in service buses on the 298 route based at Potters Bar garage.
>>>
>>>In which case they'll be ULEZ compliant, whatever they "look like" to
>>>you.
>>
>>My car could also be made ULEZ compliant but I'm not given that option and
>>if blue smoke coming out of an exhaust is ULEZ compliant then clearly the
>>rules are more flexible than anyone realised.
>
>I think I'm to avoid wasting any more time on this groundhog thread.

As ever facts are not something you're comfortable with.

On 30/12/2023 09:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2023 21:53:09 +0000 (GMT)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I heard it was only 4x4s they wanted. Mine is a standard 2 wheel drive
>> saloon.
>>> It would be great if it did end up there but given it would cost Khans evil
>>> elves time and money to sort it out I won't hold my breath. ULEZ is all about
>>
>>> cash not the enviroment otherwise scrapping perfectly good vehicles before
>> EOL
>>> wouldn't even be considered.
>>
>> How is it about cash when they will pay you 2K to scrap your car, which is
>> more than it's worth?
>
> He was forced to do that by the government.

When?

Left to his own devices Khunt
> wouldn't have coughed up a penny. And if you don't think it was about money
> why did he choose a cut off date of late 2015 for diesels? An 8 year old diesel
> car or van is barely run in and he knew perfectly well he'd coin it particularly
> with the number of traders vans that wouldn't comply as they tend to run them
> into the ground before replacement.
>
>> (if you reckon you could get more than £1600 stick it on Autotrader or ebay)
>
> Feck that. Short of someone turning up with a suitcase of cash there's no
> way in hell I'd sell it privately. Far too risky particularly here in London.
>
>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <umop2q$182u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:14 on Sat, 30 Dec
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>why did he choose a cut off date of late 2015 for diesels?

Because that's when manufacturers were forced to sell vehicles to the
latest Euro spec. Before then, a vehicle might have been manufactured to
be compliant, but few brands bothered.
--
Roland Perry