• Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17
      edit-2
      1 year 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@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        21 year 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@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year 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.

    • @018118055@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year 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.

      • Treczoks
        link
        fedilink
        31 year 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.

        • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          Except that’s it only applies to London, any change to vehicle tax would have to come from central government.

          • Treczoks
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            Less fuel-wasting cars anywhere would be a win-win over CCTV everywhere.

        • @CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Or just forbidding them in general… But no, cameras! The awnser for all your Surveillance Climate Change questions.

          This is like being against encryption of private messages because pedophiles could use that…

    • @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -41 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

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

          • HeartyBeast
            link
            fedilink
            01 year 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