"Decision makers need to get out cars and experience cycling": Reaction to school 'bike train'; Gridlock returns after LTN ripped out; Strava art; Remco races gravel; Commute truths; Bloody cyclists; Funding cuts protest ride + more on the live blog

chrisonatrike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Five cars <shakes head>

EDIT - should have followed your link; this is the same story <slaps wrist>

That's TEN cars you've now parked on this thread!

I'm sorry - I thought there was room

The council recently made one side of a street near me resident parking only. I was chatting to a resident who lives on the opposite side of the street. They were a bit miffed that they wouldn't also be getting resident bays, despite having a driveway that does have space for 5 cars (at least)...  

The £255 a year (well under a pound a day) it's costing her is far less than the true cost of maintaining a paved parking spot, on or off road.

TriTaxMan wrote:

Indeed, the number of cars is growing faster than the road's ability to keep up with them.  This is a prime example https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-6-forced-pay-255-25240183

Five cars in one house, and any time I have visited friends or family that live in newer housing estates most of the houses have at least 3 cars, with at least one parked out on the road/pavement and 2 on the driveways

 

Prime! 

"We didn't really have any issues with street parking before the permits were introduced, the only time was maybe on a Saturday when the football was on.

"You might not have been able to park outside your front door, but you could park within a close vicinity but now we can't park anywhere and we're having to pay out parking tickets."

In other words, they want to park without paying for it. Cos parking should be costless and doesn't impose any costs on anyone. 

But my favourite bit was this:

Angela says Rushmoor Borough Council is stopping families from expanding due to their parking restrictions, Hampshire Live reports.

So "We'd love to have a baby but we can't because there's nowhere to park"...? 

Bmblbzzz wrote:

 

So "We'd love to have a baby but we can't because there's nowhere to park"...? 

Well of course - how can you have a baby if there's nowhere to leave it overnight?

Bmblbzzz wrote:

But my favourite bit was this:

Angela says Rushmoor Borough Council is stopping families from expanding due to their parking restrictions, Hampshire Live reports.

So "We'd love to have a baby but we can't because there's nowhere to park"...? 

Obviously the child will immediately need his or her own spot.

Quote:

The family did manage to secure a disabled parking spot for Angela's elderly dad

I'm slightly dubious that the Dad's disability means he can't access a car that's parked on their driveway. But then I wondered if it was a long narrow drive, so had a quick look...

and you can clearly see all 5 of their cars parked on it, with room for more!! Busted!

By area that's not a house, that's a garage.

TriTaxMan wrote:

Indeed, the number of cars is growing faster than the road's ability to keep up with them.  This is a prime example https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-6-forced-pay-255-25240183

Five cars in one house, and any time I have visited friends or family that live in newer housing estates most of the houses have at least 3 cars, with at least one parked out on the road/pavement and 2 on the driveways

 

consequence of high housing costs, adults are not leaving their parents home because they can't afford to, but since they are paying neither rent or mortgage they have plenty of cash for buying cars.

HoarseMann wrote:

It's not just the rat-running drivers that are to blame here, it's also the residents of these streets storing their cars on the road. Yet I wonder how many residents will look out of their window and think, gosh, my parked car is causing a lot of trouble.

With traffic volumes like this, the council needs to make it one-way, install a modal filter or remove parking from one side of the street.

Perhaps in the interests of local democracy that should be the question: Do you want your street to become an LTN or do you want to park somewhere else to optimise road use? Perhaps with the explanation that if you don't then emergency services won't be able to get through and people will die!

Helps where you are member of the Qatari royal family.

Money talks.

Clearly dangerous driving, so why go with careless ?

You answered your oewn question:  "Qatari royal family"

I suspect they can be seen to "act" but not actually jail him. If they did go with Dangerous and found guilty (or even admitting guilt) then he would have been jailed no matter what. 

hirsute wrote:

Helps where you are member of the Qatari royal family. Money talks.

£25,000 is pocket change, so will have no effect.  As the old saying goes "When the penalty for a crime is a fine, that law only exists for the poor."

Nigel re-wrting history once again.  Doesn't matter how often his statements are contradicted and disproved he continues to dig a hole.

But the plan is not to win over people to his ideas, just to distract and cause a reaction.

Nigeǀ Garage wrote:

I didn't state that LTNs are a bad idea, merely that in their current form they are (in the main) badly implemented, undemocratic, counterproductive, inequitable and - according to Southwark council's buried consultation - quite possibly racist.

Yeah, that's why my black brothers and sisters from our neighbourhood were out in such force at the anti-LTN protest in Dulwich last week...hang on...

Where's a mental health specialist in a Land Rover when you need one?

Although with the racist comments he is jumping on the same boat that Socrapi tried previously. "Oh, more traffic might be on boundary roads and sometime poorer people will be on those. And BAME make up poorer people so it must be white people forcing the traffic on poorer people". So if the picture above does actually represent the people living in the LTN, the point might be made.

Of course car ownership is also racist in the same ways but there is only one thing he wants to get rid of. 

Fair point but the crowd in the picture are unlikely to be those living in the LTN - consultation showed those living within in around 65% in favour - but those who like to drive through Dulwich Village on their way to the golf and tennis clubs and the private and public schools. In the case of this particular LTN, it's in a very rich area; any displaced traffic (not that there is much) is still going through predominantly white-owned rich streets. The area doesn't become noticeably mixed race until it gets to my neighbourhood, about 1500m away, and we're not affected by the LTN one way or t'other.

It's worth nothing that nationally black people are twice as likely not to have access to a motor vehicle than whites, with that applying to 40% in total (DVLA, December 2020); in London, where 50% of the population as a whole doesn't have a motor, that figure is likely to be higher, so one could in fact argue that any active travel/public transport enhancements work disproportionately in favour of black people. But then one suspects certain people who believe the motor car is "unquestionably humanity's greatest invention" aren't actually that concerned about any racial justice aspect...

Nigeǀ Garage wrote:

Without wanting to get dragged into some ugly row...

Nige𝗅 Garage wrote:

On a different note, given the tone of the conversation yesterday it's great to see Lord Robathan urging action on obesity today. "Is it not time, perhaps, to revert to the situation when I was young, when it was not socially acceptable to be grossly overweight and push individual responsibility?".

Without wanting to get dragged into some ugly row ...

*checks time* only 2:20 and they've kicked off.

TBH, he might have a point. I'm sure he is wrting to his MP already to ban McDonalds and KFC and to only have 1 car and TV shared between 3 households. And maybe have rationing. I mean that was what was happening 60 years ago or so. 

Of course from when Boo was a lad, there was probably higher teen suicides as school kids would bully the overweight (and effeminate and differently coloured ones). I'm sure that us what he means with the rise of snowflakery, ie acceptance of others. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

TBH, he might have a point. I'm sure he is wrting to his MP already to ban McDonalds and KFC and to only have 1 car and TV shared between 3 households. And maybe have rationing. I mean that was what was happening 60 years ago or so. 

We had rationing in 1961? Need to check some facts, 1954 it ended.

Well my dad was still rationing well into his 80's as that was how he grew up. So one tea bag in the pot when my mum was alive and when it was just him around he left it out to reuse it. As for coffee, if there was more then 5 grains on the spoon, he would state it was too strong. 

So I expect there were still many families that rationed the household wage out 60 years ago, well what the dad didn't spend in the pub on the Friday would then be grudgingly handed over for the mum to stretch out for the food for the rest of the week. 

Nige𝗅 Garage wrote:

That's exactly the point. The traffic gets displaced from the wealthiests streets in Dulwich to a different (poorer, more diverse) borough altogether in many cases.

Traffic doesn't 'get displaced'. People choose to drive when alternatives exist.  Every person in each car is the agent of their own obstruction and the cause of inconvenience and ill-health to others.

Nige𝗅 Garage wrote:

 "Is it not time, perhaps, to revert to the situation when I was young, when it was not socially acceptable to be grossly overweight and push individual responsibility?".

Obviously not.  Why would you use the word "great" without immediately following it with the word "idiot" in relation to somebody who demonstrates no greater understanding of health than he does (as a former serviceman and under-SoS in MoD for welfare and veterans) of the need to respect 66,500 veterans of Arctic convoys?

Nige𝗅 Garage wrote:

Without wanting to get dragged into some ugly row, you'll note that only around 40 years ago there were virtually no obese people in society, when it wasn't socially acceptable. It's amazing how fast waistlines have grown in the interceeding period as cultural Marxism and snowflakery have become entrenched, especially in universities.

Oh 0.5/10 trolling Nigel, even I'm not going to bite on such a pathetically transparent attempt.

I appreciate that its a bit OT, but isn't Dulwich where Thatcher kept her coffin full of soil from Grantham?