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?

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.