• Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    If you object to surveillance you should have objected about 20 years ago.

    This is nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with people wanting to go to drive their massive 4x4 around in a city.

    I get why they’re not happy about it, but at the same time sod them and their NIMBY attudes. The reason that these laws are necessary is because people will insist on buying stupid massive cars that do 8 miles to the gallon.

    • Syldon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      OR drive Diesels without particle filters fitted. There is zero evidence that the information stored by ULEZ is anything more than the registrations of cars that are more dangerous than is acceptable. If you are part of the 90% of people who drive cars within the standard then there is no need to keep the information on file.

    • Treczoks@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That could be done quite easy by just increase the tax on more wasteful and polluting cars. No need to put up cameras at each corner.

    • JoBo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      ULEZ is about particulates, not gas guzzling. Unfortunately, it won’t take many SUVs off the road. It affects petrol cars registered before 2006 and diesels before 2015.

      90% of cars (and 95% of trips) are already compliant. There is a scrappage scheme to help people switch to a compliant model.