Unofficial data mapping the damage to cameras suggests almost 500 have been vandalised or stolen.
  • median_user@lemmy.oneEnglish
    152·
    10 months ago

    Selfish behaviour, wasting public money because they don’t like a scheme created to improve the health of normal Londoners.

  • offbyoneEnglish
    126·
    10 months ago

    I hope they’ll just be repaired, I’d imagine people won’t keep doing it for that long, only at the moment because it’s new. Eventually they’ll become used to it.

      • EmrysOfTheValley@beehaw.orgEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        The UK has one of the highest numbers of surveillance cameras per person, this is just a fact of life that people are used to. The ULEZ cameras are typically ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition), the government already know what cars you own and how polluting they are. You can’t deny that these low emission zones are decreasing air pollution and London needs it. The attacks on the cameras are because they are adding surveillance but because it is £12.50p per day if your car does not meet standards so is an added “tax” for living in London which is being forced on the local councils with little thought for the individual circumstance.

        There is a Channel 4 show a while ago called Hunted which mimics the levels of surveillance the police have to track contestants down, it is both scary and interesting how much they can work out and track down.

    • Treczoks@kbin.social
      26·
      10 months ago

      So you want to get people become used to surveillance? Keep in mind that 1984 was a warning, not a handbook.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    6·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    More than 300 cameras installed for London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) were vandalised or stolen between April and August, the BBC can reveal.

    TfL is planning to install a total of 2,750 cameras before the expansion comes into force at the end of August.

    Abbie Mires, who works in the area, said the “harsh action” of targeting Ulez cameras was justified.

    Husband and wife, Roy and Linda McKensie had to get rid of two cars ahead of the Ulez expansion, but said they did not agree with cameras being tampered with.

    The only figure the BBC has seen was an estimate cost of the planned expansion from November 2022, which was about £159.5m based on assumptions at that time.

    This includes spend for systems design, development and testing; on-street infrastructure design, procurement and delivery including camera installation and signage; marketing and media campaign; and legal and consultation costs.

    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • SyldonEnglish
      113·
      10 months ago

      ULEZ is about health. If the fumes from the car is so healthy, please show me the data that supports that.

      The idiots destroying this cameras will be paying more in council tax to replace them. That really sounds like an intelligent approach.

      • md5crypto@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        10 months ago

        If it was about health, Sadiq Khan would be doing something about the terrible pollution in the underground. But that pollution isn’t from cars, so he doesn’t care.

        • SyldonEnglish
          3·
          10 months ago

          You mean like this?

          The pandemic did provide Transport for London (TfL), who manage the Underground, the opportunity to make some improvements. Ventilation systems were assessed and according to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Update in 2021 “the London Underground ventilation infrastructure is typically designed in excess of statutory minimum requirements with an adequate provision of fresh air.”

          You don’t fix a problem with constant whataboutisms, and certainly not with whataboutisms with no credibility.

      • md5crypto@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        10 months ago

        You don’t. Civil disobedience is fine for Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, but not for this?

    • Echo DotEnglish
      235·
      10 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.

      • SyldonEnglish
        83·
        10 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
        31·
        10 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.

      • JoBoEnglish
        11·
        10 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.

      • Treczoks@kbin.social
        41·
        10 months ago

        That could be more easily achieved by increasing the taxes on polluting cars in general. There is no need for cameras at every corner.

    • 018118055@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      63·
      10 months ago

      Yes, fuck surveillance. Driving is licensed and regulated. If you don’t want to be tracked, leave your phone at home and wear suitable clothing. Ride a bike or walk.

    • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.mlEnglish
      48·
      10 months ago

      I’m honestly amazed you’re being down voted. It’s actually scary to me that people are ok with, and defending surveillance like this.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        41·
        10 months ago

        I’m amazed your are defending the use of old, polluting vehicle that contribute to chronic ill-health

        • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          You think mass surveillance of the London area is the only way to handle pollution? You honestly think that?

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            11·
            10 months ago

            I think that if you are looking to reduce vehicle pollution, using number-plate readers for that specific purpose is a proportionate measure, yes. They are already used for the central London congestion charge and outer borough LTN enforcement