| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption 10:42 - Nov 13 with 8882 views | loftboy |
This is the buy diesel scenario all over again. |  |
| |  |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 21:45 - Nov 13 with 2845 views | Superhoops2808 |
Sadly this is old news, like EV's now having to pay road tax too
My vehicle takes up as much road as the next one so why shouldnt I pay
Think if they specifically charged JUST EV's then I would be more than a bit cheesed off |  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:14 - Nov 13 with 2746 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 18:49 - Nov 13 by RangersDave3 |
EV,s should now be taxed on their weight, as an EV weighs more that a standard ICE car,
Ergo, being heavier they damage the road more than a ‘normal’ real car. |
Not the case funnily enough a lot ev to ice cars are either similar or in some cases lighter than the petrol version Tesla model 3 is around 30kg heavier than a bmw 3 series
Why zither way more congestion in central londonthese days ? Prob because half the Aval roads are now cycle lanes , drive up park lane at anytime of the day midnight or during rush hours it’s solid , why’s that half of the lanes are now cycle lanes, and how much does Johhny Lycra pay towards his shiny cycle lanes ? Naff all [Post edited 13 Nov 22:17]
|  |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:20 - Nov 13 with 2719 views | colinallcars |
If only EVs were allowed, how would the nation's half wits make lots of cracking and banging noises to pretend they are driving a high performance car? |  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 09:42 - Nov 14 with 2501 views | LazyFan |
EV's should not be charged until every motor is an EV, then we charge on weight and so on, until we have proper techno cars of today (as unlike what people used to say in the past, we have the technology today).
Then when we get to this stage and its all super efficent, we can look at how it affects traffic and do it by real conjestion and weighted off (in the peeps favour) if there is not adequate publi transport or parking near faraway transport hubs that will then get you central. |  |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 09:55 - Nov 14 with 2481 views | RBlock |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 19:49 - Nov 13 by QPR_Jim |
Just EVs on weight or all vehicles?
I drive an EV and it weighs less than a range rover, so should they pay more. What about Vans and Lorry's they're much heavier so should they pay proportionally? |
EVs aside, I really do think we should be taxing SUVs more in London. Paris have imposed an inflated parking fee of 3x the normal amount for SUVs driven by non-residents. They're luxury items that take up more space on the road, more space to park, and are significantly more dangerous than traditional cars.
On ULEZ, despite all the noise it's been an unmitigated success. Unpopular with those outside of London and on the fringes, but the impact it's had on air quality in the city has been transformational. |  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 10:35 - Nov 14 with 2406 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 09:55 - Nov 14 by RBlock |
EVs aside, I really do think we should be taxing SUVs more in London. Paris have imposed an inflated parking fee of 3x the normal amount for SUVs driven by non-residents. They're luxury items that take up more space on the road, more space to park, and are significantly more dangerous than traditional cars.
On ULEZ, despite all the noise it's been an unmitigated success. Unpopular with those outside of London and on the fringes, but the impact it's had on air quality in the city has been transformational. |
did u know the uk is the highest purchaser of SUV cars in europe .
most dont take any more space up than the saloon chasis they are built on funnily enough . have u seen the size of the average mini these days would you look to tax them at a higher rate ? | |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 11:17 - Nov 14 with 2331 views | RBlock |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 10:35 - Nov 14 by wombat |
did u know the uk is the highest purchaser of SUV cars in europe .
most dont take any more space up than the saloon chasis they are built on funnily enough . have u seen the size of the average mini these days would you look to tax them at a higher rate ? |
I agree the point regarding Minis - cars across the board are getting larger. A 2025 Range Rover is 30% bigger than it's 1970s equivalent. The point though is to counter the increase in SUVs, now the most popular type of car in the UK, so no, the policy wouldn't also target Minis.
Is that the case that they don't take up more space than a saloon? What is inarguable though is the increased risk they pose to cyclists and pedestrians, even more so to children where the high blunt bonnet collides with their head and torso, | | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 13:43 - Nov 14 with 2194 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 11:17 - Nov 14 by RBlock |
I agree the point regarding Minis - cars across the board are getting larger. A 2025 Range Rover is 30% bigger than it's 1970s equivalent. The point though is to counter the increase in SUVs, now the most popular type of car in the UK, so no, the policy wouldn't also target Minis.
Is that the case that they don't take up more space than a saloon? What is inarguable though is the increased risk they pose to cyclists and pedestrians, even more so to children where the high blunt bonnet collides with their head and torso, |
the latest mega min is the same sie as the average Quashqui type suv possibly bigger to be honest. there isnt a huge amount of range rovers on the road manily due to the fact they self combust a little two often esp the phev versions.
most common suv cars honda nissan are higher than the saloon versions they replace, they are populat due to better driving positions , better visibilty , so those poor cyclsits and children who shouldnt be playing in the fats lane of the M1 dont get squashed , did read something that due to the higher bonnets and safety improvments that ur more likely to be less hurt when hit by the average suv obv depnded what speed the car is going , think its mainly own to a collision is less likely to send poor tarquin into the windscreen than a lower down bonnet would.
one of the tesla models actually makes the bonnet rise if a collision is detected to help disipate the force of the accidnet and result in less damage to the person involved ,
on the cyclsit argument how many do u see on the road with ZERO road awareness , run red lights , go down the inside of buses cars lorries yet blame the driver if things go wrong . esp the fans of the boris bike who have no idea how to use a main road in the uk [Post edited 14 Nov 14:38]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 14:20 - Nov 14 with 2111 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 09:55 - Nov 14 by RBlock |
EVs aside, I really do think we should be taxing SUVs more in London. Paris have imposed an inflated parking fee of 3x the normal amount for SUVs driven by non-residents. They're luxury items that take up more space on the road, more space to park, and are significantly more dangerous than traditional cars.
On ULEZ, despite all the noise it's been an unmitigated success. Unpopular with those outside of London and on the fringes, but the impact it's had on air quality in the city has been transformational. |
Your first point makes no sense and would be grossly unfair. It smacks of targeting certain vehicles just because they're popular and a potential cash cow (in the same way governments targeted diesel vehicles and now EVs).
By targeting SUVs by definition you're hurting ordinary families, folk who need the most help in today's society. Moreover, many modern SUVs have a small footprint. Take the Ford Puma for example which is an small SUV based on the outgoing Ford Fiesta.
Indeed, many 'traditional cars' are luxury items that cost as much, if not more, than their SUV counterparts. Should the wealthy residents of Chelsea driving Bugattis, Aston Martins, Bentleys, etc. pay less because their vehicles aren't SUVs? Or should the driver of a poorly maintained Ford Focus billowing black smoke out of its exhaust pay less because it's a 'traditional car'? Of course not.
As for your assertion that SUVs are significantly more dangerous than 'traditional cars', this sort of wild claim without fact-based evidence to support it just undermines your entire argument. Frankly I won't be taking advice from Paris.
Moving on to your second point, I agree that ULEZ has been an unmitigated success if the metric is how much money it generates for Sadiq. Money, which by the way, is being taken from poorer members of society who can't afford to buy compliant cars. You've mentioned the marginal gains in the City without acknowledging that the ULEZ zone has long been expanded to the borders of Greater London, where it has made little to no difference to air quality. Based on your argument alone, the ULEZ zone should be reverted back to its original borders.
In my humble opinion, rather than target popular or luxury vehicles, the cost of VED should be partially linked to emissions, with owners of EVs paying a base price to help towards the cost of maintaining Britain's roads and the introduction of a robust and effective charging infrastructure. All manufacturers of new vehicles have to publish emission figures by law and cars over 3 years have their emissions recorded during an MOT test. The government could easily use this data to establish a sliding scale of Road Tax that charges dirtier vehicles more, irrespective of vehicle type. This, in turn, would encourage drivers to buy less polluting vehicles and to maintain their vehicles properly. |  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 14:40 - Nov 14 with 2086 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 14:20 - Nov 14 by Benny_the_Ball |
Your first point makes no sense and would be grossly unfair. It smacks of targeting certain vehicles just because they're popular and a potential cash cow (in the same way governments targeted diesel vehicles and now EVs).
By targeting SUVs by definition you're hurting ordinary families, folk who need the most help in today's society. Moreover, many modern SUVs have a small footprint. Take the Ford Puma for example which is an small SUV based on the outgoing Ford Fiesta.
Indeed, many 'traditional cars' are luxury items that cost as much, if not more, than their SUV counterparts. Should the wealthy residents of Chelsea driving Bugattis, Aston Martins, Bentleys, etc. pay less because their vehicles aren't SUVs? Or should the driver of a poorly maintained Ford Focus billowing black smoke out of its exhaust pay less because it's a 'traditional car'? Of course not.
As for your assertion that SUVs are significantly more dangerous than 'traditional cars', this sort of wild claim without fact-based evidence to support it just undermines your entire argument. Frankly I won't be taking advice from Paris.
Moving on to your second point, I agree that ULEZ has been an unmitigated success if the metric is how much money it generates for Sadiq. Money, which by the way, is being taken from poorer members of society who can't afford to buy compliant cars. You've mentioned the marginal gains in the City without acknowledging that the ULEZ zone has long been expanded to the borders of Greater London, where it has made little to no difference to air quality. Based on your argument alone, the ULEZ zone should be reverted back to its original borders.
In my humble opinion, rather than target popular or luxury vehicles, the cost of VED should be partially linked to emissions, with owners of EVs paying a base price to help towards the cost of maintaining Britain's roads and the introduction of a robust and effective charging infrastructure. All manufacturers of new vehicles have to publish emission figures by law and cars over 3 years have their emissions recorded during an MOT test. The government could easily use this data to establish a sliding scale of Road Tax that charges dirtier vehicles more, irrespective of vehicle type. This, in turn, would encourage drivers to buy less polluting vehicles and to maintain their vehicles properly. |
funnily enough that emmiisons hot spot chessington zoo is included in ulez wonder why ?
[Post edited 14 Nov 14:46]
| |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 15:34 - Nov 14 with 1999 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 14:40 - Nov 14 by wombat |
funnily enough that emmiisons hot spot chessington zoo is included in ulez wonder why ?
[Post edited 14 Nov 14:46]
|
The big one is Heathrow Airport. If you're driving a non-compliant vehicle dropping someone off for 2 minutes will cost you £18.50; £12.50 to enter the ULEZ zone as well as a £6 drop-off charge.
The ULEZ expansion was a clear and obvious money grab that penalises poorer members of society. The ULEZ zone should be returned to previous borders. | | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 20:05 - Nov 14 with 1864 views | Maggsinho |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 14:20 - Nov 14 by Benny_the_Ball |
Your first point makes no sense and would be grossly unfair. It smacks of targeting certain vehicles just because they're popular and a potential cash cow (in the same way governments targeted diesel vehicles and now EVs).
By targeting SUVs by definition you're hurting ordinary families, folk who need the most help in today's society. Moreover, many modern SUVs have a small footprint. Take the Ford Puma for example which is an small SUV based on the outgoing Ford Fiesta.
Indeed, many 'traditional cars' are luxury items that cost as much, if not more, than their SUV counterparts. Should the wealthy residents of Chelsea driving Bugattis, Aston Martins, Bentleys, etc. pay less because their vehicles aren't SUVs? Or should the driver of a poorly maintained Ford Focus billowing black smoke out of its exhaust pay less because it's a 'traditional car'? Of course not.
As for your assertion that SUVs are significantly more dangerous than 'traditional cars', this sort of wild claim without fact-based evidence to support it just undermines your entire argument. Frankly I won't be taking advice from Paris.
Moving on to your second point, I agree that ULEZ has been an unmitigated success if the metric is how much money it generates for Sadiq. Money, which by the way, is being taken from poorer members of society who can't afford to buy compliant cars. You've mentioned the marginal gains in the City without acknowledging that the ULEZ zone has long been expanded to the borders of Greater London, where it has made little to no difference to air quality. Based on your argument alone, the ULEZ zone should be reverted back to its original borders.
In my humble opinion, rather than target popular or luxury vehicles, the cost of VED should be partially linked to emissions, with owners of EVs paying a base price to help towards the cost of maintaining Britain's roads and the introduction of a robust and effective charging infrastructure. All manufacturers of new vehicles have to publish emission figures by law and cars over 3 years have their emissions recorded during an MOT test. The government could easily use this data to establish a sliding scale of Road Tax that charges dirtier vehicles more, irrespective of vehicle type. This, in turn, would encourage drivers to buy less polluting vehicles and to maintain their vehicles properly. |
There’s lots of evidence that SUVs are more dangerous. A study by the London School of Hygenie and Tropical Medicine found children were 82%more likely to be killed if hit by an SUV.
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2025/being-hit-suv-increases-likelihood- |  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:09 - Nov 14 with 1739 views | wombat |
That well known dept for health and safety you mean? | |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 16:01 - Nov 15 with 1504 views | R_from_afar |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:09 - Nov 14 by wombat |
That well known dept for health and safety you mean? |
The study looks pretty credible, Imperial College London was also involved and real-world collision data from over 680,000 collisions from the last 35 years was analysed.
On a less controversial note, when I was looking for a new car, I found that the choice was not great if you didn't want an SUV. I was trying to avoid having an SUV because a) I didn't need a larger car and b) space on my drive was at a premium. |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 01:53 - Nov 16 with 1324 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 16:01 - Nov 15 by R_from_afar |
The study looks pretty credible, Imperial College London was also involved and real-world collision data from over 680,000 collisions from the last 35 years was analysed.
On a less controversial note, when I was looking for a new car, I found that the choice was not great if you didn't want an SUV. I was trying to avoid having an SUV because a) I didn't need a larger car and b) space on my drive was at a premium. |
I’d be way more interested in figures from more recent to that sorry cars have progressed massively in regards safety to both the drivers and Joe Public , here’s quick fact did u know we have allow 1.6 million drivers on Uk roads who have never passed a Uk driving test . Wonder what the figures are for them having accidents in the last ten or so years | |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 13:29 - Nov 16 with 1178 views | kensalriser |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 01:53 - Nov 16 by wombat |
I’d be way more interested in figures from more recent to that sorry cars have progressed massively in regards safety to both the drivers and Joe Public , here’s quick fact did u know we have allow 1.6 million drivers on Uk roads who have never passed a Uk driving test . Wonder what the figures are for them having accidents in the last ten or so years |
Where's that fact from?
And I'd say the problem is people who haven't passed a test anywhere. I've driven in numerous countries where I haven't passed a test. |  |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 18:31 - Nov 16 with 1061 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 13:29 - Nov 16 by kensalriser |
Where's that fact from?
And I'd say the problem is people who haven't passed a test anywhere. I've driven in numerous countries where I haven't passed a test. |
I assume this comes from a misleading Express headline here:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/357598/1m-migrants-skip-UK-driving-test
A) it was 1.1 million in 2012
B) South Africa (149,897), Poland (135,079), Australia (103,052) and New Zealand (56,478) make up the bulk. Hardly third world drivers, and with the exception of Poland drive on the same side as us and base their highway code on the UK system.
C) The stats are between 1997 and 2012.
D) Doesn't include those that went home, gave up their licence, or died.
Just more irresponsible rage baiting masked as journalism. [Post edited 16 Nov 18:33]
|  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 19:44 - Nov 16 with 979 views | GosportHoops |
If we want the hole in the ozone layer to get smaller we're all gonna have to pay to drive around London! |  | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:19 - Nov 16 with 852 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 13:29 - Nov 16 by kensalriser |
Where's that fact from?
And I'd say the problem is people who haven't passed a test anywhere. I've driven in numerous countries where I haven't passed a test. |
Not sure was on one of the new outlets a week or so ago will try and find the link | |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:20 - Nov 16 with 847 views | wombat |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 19:44 - Nov 16 by GosportHoops |
If we want the hole in the ozone layer to get smaller we're all gonna have to pay to drive around London! |
Not sure china would agree with that as aren’t they the largest producer by far of ‘emmisions ? | |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:24 - Nov 16 with 847 views | colinallcars |
Haven't checked but I think China, India and the USA. | | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:50 - Nov 16 with 810 views | kensalriser |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:20 - Nov 16 by wombat |
Not sure china would agree with that as aren’t they the largest producer by far of ‘emmisions ? |
Obviously countries with the largest populations will produce the highest total emissions, but it's a different story per capita - China is 25th. And China is forging ahead with renewable and clean energies. As they don't have elections their government isn't influenced by vested interests,ie lobbying by billionaires and fossil fuel corporations, so they can get on dealing with reality. | |
| |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 09:28 - Nov 17 with 633 views | RBlock |
There is also evidence that SUVs and larger vehicles cause an increase in traffic, which doesn't come as much surprise.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23249935.2025.2477817
Quite enjoying the responses that don't address the point, instead blaming cyclists, migrants, and China. | | | |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 09:32 - Nov 17 with 623 views | Maggsinho |
| EV’s to lose congestion charge exemption on 22:09 - Nov 14 by wombat |
That well known dept for health and safety you mean? |
It's a world leading university that specialises in public health so I would say it's a better source than a department for health and safety. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
