London LEZ discount for Private HGV's
Comments
-
It really beats me. Why do some motorhomers think they are special?
2 -
I agree with you👍🏻, I don’t own a Moho but think it an excellent idea to give Moho users an official outlet for their services👍🏻
0 -
You've not seen my posts elsewhere. We see demands for special overnight and day parking arrangements just for MHs and the OP wanting exemption from paying the applicable LEZ. All this because some choose to drive larger vehicles.
It's my choice to drive what is essentially a commercial vehicle so I get on with it without begging for special treatment.
Hope that helps.
4 -
I can understand where you are coming from, but I am not seeking special treatment, just fair treatment.
It is extremely difficult to find parking space for a large MH when in transit in this country. Height barriers, tiny parking spaces, deliberately restricted access, exclusion from many lorry and coach parks .... to name but a few.
There are thousands of larger MHs registered in this country and local authorities have failed miserably in providing parking which is proportionate to the number of such vehicles.
I know there are problems with some other forms of travellers, but other countries seem to have overcome them.
2 -
I think you missed the point.
Lorries and coaches are providing essential services. A MH is a leisure vehicle. Why should LAs make provision for MHs which would incur tax payer expenditure to subsidise the holidays of a few? That is far from fair.
You epitomise exactly my point that some MH-ers expect special treatment.
1 -
Where do you choose to spend the majority of your time in your (lovely) MH Jim?
0 -
It's not unfortunate at all. I am very glad I have such an equitable outlook.👍
4 -
Your last sentance "other forms of travellers" is one the main reasons in this country that restrictions are being increased, as those you mention are on the increase ,and are not all from this country ,with also those, who as noted by LAs installing "no over night camping" signs show no consideration for others who it impacts, with increased costs as posted several times by others,
The small amount of larger motor caravans (compared to the amount of LVs on the road) is noted by the posts on here asking if members can advise of sites near public transport and "civilisation" because they only it seems do not want to have other forms of transport ie towcars,
And as mentioned many times "over there" is motorcaravan "heaven" compared to this tiny overcrowded island ,and it seems the authorities in some other countries are more "active" when those who think they know better are confronted.
The" problem"in this and many other countries is only to increase as more cities and larger towns introduce restictions to try to combat the pollution levels affecting their populations
0 -
I think there are two different points here. The provision of Aires is up to LA’s and private companies / businesses. Presumably if they see a benefit, either to their local community or company / business profits they will do so.
The environmental charge highlighted by the OP is a completely different matter. If you are allowing vehicles of a certain type into the zone, the charge should in some way reflect pollution levels and how much they are used. Currently it seems a relatively clean MH is lumped with an HGV doing multiple deliveries throughout London. The MH might be kept in storage at Abbey Wood and travel a relatively short distance to exit the LEZ. It is unlikely to be used for regular journeys round the capital.
0 -
I don't quite follow your logic there, Steve. As I understand it, the LEZ charging is based on pollution emissions. The charge is per day so a lorry pollutes and is charged £100, or whatever, and a MH also pollutes so is also charged. The lorry might enter the zone 5 days a week while the MH might only travel 4 times a year but each pays for his 'use' within the LEZ.
Yes, two different issues - MH parking and emission charging - but they are linked by some MH-ers calls for exemption/special provisions.
0 -
Your concept of fair treatment is puzzling to me?
There are 225,000 motorhomes in the UK out of about 38,000,000 registered road users, yet with this very small proportion (about 0.6%) and taking into account most (if perhaps not all) of those motorhomes will be for leisure purposes you still want fair treatment?
You want owners of car parks and parking places spend their money or public money to ensure you can have a place to park. Why should local authorities spend public money to enable you to get easier parking?
There are over half a million caravans in the UK so by your own logic I should be demanding similar fair treatment for myself, twice as much in fact. Local authorities are failing to provide parking for me.
Of course I don't as I simply see that it was my choice to buy a caravan and my problem as to where to park it.
You bought a motorhome for your leisure purposes, fine that is your choice, just don't expect public money to provide you with special treatment?
3 -
I keep reading about "the financial benefits of MH tourism being encouraged close to town centres" but it strikes me as dreamland. They spend very little and bring fewer financial benefits than other sorts of tourism.
And I can't imagine any larger towns - and certainly no cities - wanting motorhomes to come in to central areas. It ain't going to happen.
5 -
We don’t even take the car to London if we go, let alone the MH. It has hundreds of millions of pounds spent on alternative forms of transport, so might as well make use of it. 🤷♀️
2 -
As been stated - If you are allowing vehicles of a certain type into the zone, the charge should in some way reflect pollution levels and how much they are used. Currently it seems a relatively clean MH is lumped with an HGV doing multiple deliveries throughout London. The MH might be kept in storage at Abbey Wood and travel a relatively short distance to exit the LEZ. It is unlikely to be used for regular journeys round the capital.
I live within walking distance of Abbeywood and the main use of my vehicle is towing my caravan. Having owned this one for 6 years it’s covered 45,000. I can currently use it locally in the LEZ, come October when the ULEZ boundary changes a visit to the local hospital would incur a charge. I have already replaced a vehicle when the emissions levels were raised and expect that the levels will raise again in the near future resulting in the replacement of my current vehicle. Don’t get me wrong, the air is not as sweet as the countryside and needs improvement, But (and this is a big BUT), How come users of the Dartford crossing’s aren’t charged Similar LEZ charge? The emissions levels in the surrounding communities are far worse than those of Abbeywood and parts of the ULEZ zones.
0 -
My point is, it is punitive, the same MH plated a few kilos less, would be charged £12.50, or not at all. In my opinion this is a totally excessive charge. Although the MH user may pay for a day, they are only travelling a few miles to exit the zone. The delivery HGV’s are likely to be traveling much larger distances with a lot of stop start. Plus of course the cost will be ultimately passed on to their customers. Therefore they are not really paying it, the end consumer will. Not something the MH user can do. Currently such a MH owner would have to pay £100 to extract it from storage and take it for an MOT. If it was stored at Abbey Wood it is 5.4 miles to the zone boundary, so £20 a mile. As I said punitive. As I read the OP they are not asking for the charge to be waived, just reduced to a realistic level, as in other cities.
1 -
I had to look up the Dart costs the other day, I panicked about LEZ/ULEZ! I presume most casual users of the crossing have to pay something, whereas compliant users in the emission zones don't. We can drive into London with our EV but will have to pay the congestion charge in 2025 , are there any winners?! It's congestion and pollution that have moved this on, the costs are acting as a big deterrent and the human costs to health will hopefully improve?
0 -
Where do you choose to spend the majority of your time in your (lovely) MH Jim?
TDG, it's not so much where we use use our MH but how I use it. We've covered a good deal of the UK since we got our first MH in 1981 and we've also covered most of the regions of western Europe.
From January to April, we go to the Med coast south of Valencia in search of winter sun and stay for 14-21 nights at a selection of pre-booked sites. On the way down and back, we tend to use aires to stop overnight as progress dictates.
From May to August, we book CCC and CMC sites a couple of weeks in advance for 5 day breaks whenever the weather looks favourable and site capacity permits, usually choose somewhere within 150 miles of home.
From late August to October/early November, we tend to tour on the continent via Eurotunnel and stay for varying lengths of time depending on what there is to see and do in the local area. Again, on longer hops, we usually overnight on an aire, stellplatz or sosta stopping around 4pm or when I am ready to call it a day.
I am happy to use sites in the UK (and abroad) but am finding our green and pleasant land increasingly hard to tour around without a lot of advance planning.
0 -
SteveL said:-
My point is, it is punitive, the same MH plated a few kilos less, would be charged £12.50, or not at all. In my opinion this is a totally excessive charge.
Steve
It's the same point I made earlier in the thread which some seem to be conveniently ignoring whilst making their arguments against the idea. How can it be fair that there is a nearly £90 difference based on weight? If the charge was truly based of emissions there would be no difference between a motorhome rated at 3500kgs and one rated at 3850kgs, especially as many probably have exactly the same engine, how is that some don't grasp this obvious point? The charging system is clearly flawed and needs amending.
David
2 -
That is rather unfortunate wording, David. Perhaps some of us grasp very well the obvious fact that TFL have to draw the dividing line somewhere and we accept that they have chosen 3500kg as their upper limit for vehicles classed as cars, as is also the case with many other aspects of road/vehicle use. The issue here is that certain MHs happen to fall into the over 3500kg commercial vehicle bracket and I’m afraid it is what it is, albeit that some MHs may do very few miles within the LEZ.
Vehicles of 3500kg and 3850kg may indeed use the same engines but it does not follow that the emissions will be the same. Emissions ratings are dependent on more than just the engine, and weight being shifted is one other factor affecting the rating.
I'm of the opinion that TFL have their reasons for doing what they have and will be advised by suitably technically qualified people in making these decisions.
2 -
I'm of the opinion that TFL have their reasons for doing what they have and will be advised by suitably technically qualified people in making these decisions.
My opinion would be that they have not even considered Motorhomes and the fact they will not routinely be used within the zone. We will just have to wait and see. If sense prevails they will reclassify Motorhomes of all sizes and charge them at £12.50 a day. Our Euro 6 is currently exempt even in the ULEZ. If they were to charge me £12.50 each way to visit Abbey Wood I would still visit. Once on site we use public transport and it does not move. Up thread someone mentioned park and ride to avoid the £100, which will almost certainly put folk with larger MH off. Abbey wood is in affect a park and ride, which allows overnight stays.
1
