See, I agree on all those points.
Totally - 100%.
You know why? Because they are totally valid and good reasons to avoid certain parts of the town having commercial vehicles used in them. (I can't attest to your final point Den as I was only just born 30 years ago but I will take your word as accurate on it.
)
Notice in how all of those posts above not one of you mentioned what a great idea it was to ban cars, for security reasons?
That's because it is not. It is rather "British" in its ways (ban the instrument / weapon / object etc), but with all things British, somewhat quaintly idiotic in principle, fostered on with a whole load of passive cringe and vomit for merit.
I mean seriously...who here thinks that pedestrianizing the area
for the purpose of security is a good idea? After 9/11 every civil liberty lost was like "letting the terrorists win" in the mind of opponents to things like the patriot act etc. This time what will people say - this is like letting bad drivers win? I mean seriously.
You know who else would be offended by this? All the environmentalists / friends of the earth crowd etc who genuinely do care for the planet and want to do all the things that reduce pollution / congestion etc? Why? Because instead of considering their proposals on the merits, you are using their cause (and them) to justify an idiotic police chief's plans, for yet another pointless ban.
US conservatives usually say stuff like "better ban all those knives" every time that there is a mass knife attack in London or Paris. "Better ban those cars" came up after Nice (and the lorry attack) yet this really is a serious proposal by the met in how to combat behavior that masquerades as terrorism.
Heero_yuy's point about hacking is a serious concern but at least there is an element of seriousness to his point ; the commissioner has just gone off the deep end with her level of crazy though.
If I was interested in just playing politics with this I would have just said "better ban all cars" at the start of the thread...little did I know my flippant / sarcastic jibe would end up being the policy consideration of the met. Dear oh dear.
The idea of less congestion and bringing down pollution rates is admirable. The idea of the population being less densely centered around big towns can also be great (so long as you don't have the philosophy of the Sierra club) but for the appropriate geological and environmental reasons. Not for the purpose of national security.
Oh and one addition: If some of you really do think that banning cars is the way to go (for security purposes), then please say so. I think that it is a ridiculous idea but if you support it please don't hide behind the skirt or dress hems of "environmentalism" or "better mobility access etc". I have already been told by a moderator to keep this on topic so assuming that we're not going to turn this thread into a thread on "green peace utopias VS the daggers of urbanization / gentrification" then perhaps a little clarity on how the comments from the met have some (even minuscule) pertinence in preventing terror attacks would be nice to hear. (Assuming that there are any?)