The 'Bladerunners' are right

[ingenieur]

grumbledoak said:

Seems like an appropriate response to the so called democracy we live under. If people can support Just Stop Oil blocking roads and those SUV tyre deflator people, I don't see why others cannot support this.

It's worrying when you put it like that. If 10% of our democratic activities are taking place on the streets with a physical overriding of the ballot box it's indicative of a larger problem!

[vikingaero]

I've got a feeling that ULEZ cameras are going to be attacked long after the scheme comes into operation...

There's a leisure centre near me that has parking cameras at the entrance. They rent out spaces to pupils from a nearby school. These pupils had paid for parking and were getting constant fines/invoices. So I merely pointed out to Vikingette2 to tell her friends that if the camera was pointing at the sky or ground it wouldn't catch anyone - it didn't take more than a bunk up to pull on the cable. I don't think it pointed at number plates for more than one day.

[valiant]

So are we sticking to ulez cameras only?

It’s just there’s an annoying camera protecting a bus only lane that prevents me, a taxpayer paying their wages, from a handy cut through to get to the station.

I trust everyone is ok if direct action is taken?

[silverfoxcc]

one easy and cheap way to cinfuse the system is to print a set of plates on yiur epson ( other printers are available) and all drive into the ULEZ within a 30 min slot
the olate i was thinking of is P155 OFF legally spaced of course

[Harji]

Whats the odds these idiots are part of a group that own a ULEZ compliant vehicle, dont understand its implementation, beleive every vehicle is to be charged (yes, some Tesla owners in Uxbridge though that)beleive the 15 min city is ruse to lock you in, and bascially beleive all the crap that appears on Nextdoor ?

[Hill92]

smn159 said:

ingenieur said:

Arguably it's not public infrastructure if the means by which it came into being aren't of the people.

Well it was installed by an elected authority and it's expansion was backed by an elected government, so not sure what you mean by that

Indeed

With the exception of a handful of referendums over the year, we do not practice direct democracy (and even the referendums were merely advisory).

We, like most of the western world, live in a representative democracy: we elect MPs, councillors and in some areas Mayors to debate, consider and make decisions on our behalf. Manifestos are not and cannot ever be legal commitments or limitations on the decisions of elected representatives, not least because compromise is necessary and healthy.

By contrast, the 'Bladerunners' have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

grumbledoak said:

Seems like an appropriate response to the so called democracy we live under. If people can support Just Stop Oil blocking roads and those SUV tyre deflator people, I don't see why others cannot support this.

But I thought we were all supposed to condemn those who supported JSO?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Faust66]

Grumps. said:

Faust66 said:

Pickle_Party_247 said:

Morons committing vandalism and wasting public money. Anyone kicking off about ULEZ charges is a complete child in any reasonable person's book. What's next, vandalising DVSA offices because they charge VED?

What happened to new users having to wait a year/make 1000 posts before being allowed to venture in to NP&E?

Thread was started in GG and was then moved to NPE.

Ah, that'll be why then. Thanks for the explanation.

[ingenieur]

Harji said:

Whats the odds these idiots are part of a group that own a ULEZ compliant vehicle, dont understand its implementation, beleive every vehicle is to be charged (yes, some Tesla owners in Uxbridge though that)beleive the 15 min city is ruse to lock you in, and bascially beleive all the crap that appears on Nextdoor ?

The pandemic was only 2 or 3 years ago and you've already forgotten...

[ingenieur]

Hill92 said:

smn159 said:

ingenieur said:

Arguably it's not public infrastructure if the means by which it came into being aren't of the people.

Well it was installed by an elected authority and it's expansion was backed by an elected government, so not sure what you mean by that

Indeed

With the exception of a handful of referendums over the year, we do not practice direct democracy (and even the referendums were merely advisory).

We, like most of the western world, live in a representative democracy: we elect MPs, councillors and in some areas Mayors to debate, consider and make decisions on our behalf. Manifestos are not and cannot ever be legal commitments or limitations on the decisions of elected representatives, not least because compromise is necessary and healthy.

Representative democracy only works if there is respect on both sides.

[Vanden Saab]

smn159 said:

ingenieur said:

smn159 said:

ingenieur said:

Arguably it's not public infrastructure if the means by which it came into being aren't of the people.

Well it was installed by an elected authority and it's expansion was backed by an elected government, so not sure what you mean by that

I think you do know what I mean by that but you're pretending not to understand on purpose.

If people really were asked they would have said 'no'. Supposedly when they got a load of negative responses to their consultations the results were thrown in the bin.

The Uxbridge byelection had in some ways taken the form of a proxy vote on ULEZ and caused Labour to lose a seat they thought they had a chance of winning. Sir Kier Starmer is straddling his fence and pouring cold water on it. Various councils have mounted legal challenges against it.

I don't think you can seriously claim that there's nothing to see here.

Sean Baily stood against Khan on a platform of stopping the ULEZ expansion.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/17453762.sh...

Londoners were in no doubt that a vote for Khan was a vote to expand ULEZ.

Or does 'the will of the people' only count when it suits?

Only as far as the north and south circular though... But you knew that didn't you...

Khan said:

I was clear in my manifesto that I would expand the ULEZ up to the North and South Circular Roads in October 2021.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-a...

[Getragdogleg]

Pickle_Party_247 said:

Morons committing vandalism and wasting public money. Anyone kicking off about ULEZ charges is a complete child in any reasonable person's book. What's next, vandalising DVSA offices because they charge VED?

How the hell is this user posting in NP&E with two posts and a new account ?

ETA: oh, it was moved from GG...

Its still a poor argument, Anyone not understanding the ULEZ is a gateway to pay per mile charges is naïve or part of the problem.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Monday 14th August 19:39

[ingenieur]

Getragdogleg said:

Pickle_Party_247 said:

Morons committing vandalism and wasting public money. Anyone kicking off about ULEZ charges is a complete child in any reasonable person's book. What's next, vandalising DVSA offices because they charge VED?

How the hell is this user posting in NP&E with two posts and a new account ?

ETA: oh, it was moved from GG...

Its still a poor argument, Anyone not understanding the ULEZ is a gateway to pay per mile charges is naïve or part of the problem.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Monday 14th August 19:39

It's probably Sadiq

[Wills2]

I think we're going to see a lot more "direct action" as things start to unwind from both sides of the argument, whether you see it as direct action or wanton acts of criminal damage/behaviour etc...will depend on which side of the fence you're on.

[croyde]

ingenieur said:

It's a way of saying it... but it's hard to argue that the timing for introducing ULEZ is worthwhile given that the vehicles it targets are in the last 3rd of their service for the majority of their owners and will be shuffling off to the scrapyard in the sky soon enough anyway.

Furthermore...

With any argument which says "all these things have to be done to lower pollution" so is with ULEZ that by creating the bureaucracy, buying and installing a ton of cameras and computer equipment and paying people to operate them you are creating pollution. All the effort put into running the scheme (effort = pollution) must be subtracted from the diminishing difference between compliant and non-compliant vehicles. i.e. for ever camera erected Londoners could make 3000 journeys in a non-compliant vehicle and we'd still be breaking even.

That's not the point I'm making though. It just seems to me like they didn't properly ask people about this and now we've got real vigilantes hacking down cameras. Quelle surprise.

This.

It's rare to see a car older than 10 years old in London these days, in fact it's surprising to see something more than 3 years old what with leasing etc.

The ULEZ is chasing an ever diminshing tiny minority of cars but........

Then they'll come after the Euro 4s, then 5s, then 6s. They'll then target older EVs with the wrong type of battery.

It's just a money grabber because if I was in charge and there was positive proof that a certain car was spewing child killing gas, I'd ban it on the spot, not think up daft ideas of making cash.

[smn159]

Vanden Saab said:

Only as far as the north and south circular though... But you knew that didn't you...

And I guess that you knew that a thorough public consultation took place on further expansion.

Honestly, people taking to social media and threatening to break stuff because they disagree with decisions made by elected authorities sound like toddlers stamping their feet because they can't have more ice cream

Usually from the same people whining about zero tolerance for JSO protesters too...

[Pit Pony]

EmailAddress said:

Wait, there's public infrastructure that hasn't been designed to oppress us

The lights on a pedestrian only crossing at our local railway.

[SlimJim16v]

smn159 said:

And I guess that you knew that a thorough public consultation took place on further expansion.

[smn159]

SlimJim16v said:

smn159 said:

And I guess that you knew that a thorough public consultation took place on further expansion.

Well the High Court decided that it did - unless you think they're in the pay of the WEF / part of the evil plot to impose communism / engaged in the 'war on the motorist'?

[Panamax]

ingenieur said:

From that to a situation where you create a little log file on Kahn's computer every time you leave your house is a bit too much.

Agreed, but that's the reality of UK today. The only people the system can't track are the ones who stick two two fingers up at any sort of society - in other words the ones who are the biggest concern.

Meanwhile normal citizens leave an indelible trail of mobile phone signal, credit card transactions and number plate recognition.

[valiant]

croyde said:

It's just a money grabber because if I was in charge and there was positive proof that a certain car was spewing child killing gas, I'd ban it on the spot, not think up daft ideas of making cash.

But as said before, it doesn’t actually raise a huge amount for TfL when compared to its total budget. £200m against over £9bn and then there’s the costs of running the scheme in itself.

To say it’s a money grabber is not quite right. I mean, we all know where it’s going to end up eventually with road pricing but that’s a national issue to be decided at government level due to loss of fuel duty and using cameras for that simply won’t cut it as there’s too many holes in the network to make it fair and viable.

I get the argument about why not simply ban the most polluting cars (makes most sense) but then politics comes into play. He is a politician that wants to be re-elected so he doesn’t want to completely piss of great swathes of the electorate so he uses ‘nudges’ to get what his desired outcome by nudging certain owners of certain vehicles into changing their cars a bit earlier than they wanted. Yeah, he can then change the rules again but again he’ll nudge us into doing so by giving plenty of warning, charging and not banning and making it a bit more difficult to own a particular vehicle that you’ll change it.