Meet Europe’s biggest loser in the war on cars – POLITICO
www.politico.eu

Archive link

This is an incredibly shit article trying to play reader’s emotions. I do not agree with the execution of ULEZ expansion.

But death threats? Defacing? What the actual fuck, people?

  • sizzler@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    Seemed pretty factual and gave an in-depth look at the effects on the London Mayor’s family and life just from trying to improve the air quality in their local area. Why anyone tries to argue that removing cars from central London doesn’t improve quality of life is strange. Of course it does. It’s a disliked plan but unless everyone drives electric it’s necessary. Too many self-centred arseholes these days.

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      It’s a disliked plan but unless everyone drives electric it’s necessary.

      I realize that lots of people (including the architects of the ULEZ plan themselves, probably) think pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are the problem they’re trying to solve, but the reality is that electric cars ruin cities just as surely as combustion ones do. The simple fact is that cars take up too much space, and any city that tries to raze itself to fit them in ceases to function properly in the process.

      In other words, restricting cars from the city center is necessary whether they’re electric or not.

      • sizzler@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        I agree and encourage you to reread what I wrote. Yes, the ulez both encourages less vehicles AND electric vehicles. That’s not the same thing but achieves a common purpose generally. I struggle to answer the issue that you can drive modern 4x4s and older vehicles still but I think they are necessary allowable technicality because one is often half-electric and cleaner than a vehicle ten years older, and the other is soo niche that the percentage it affects is irrelevant.