Forum Topic

>>"You condemn ‘car drivers’ for every ill on the road."This is your imagination.>>"You say you don’t want electric cars on the road, because they ‘still pollute’."They do, they are not the answer to all our transport problems. It's not that I don't want them on the road, but we can't have millions of them on the road, they won't fit>>"You want the top end of Boston Road closed to traffic for the sake of the children. That includes all buses and emergency vehicles."Again, this is in your imagination. You are imagining I think this. This is not what I think.>>"You fail to mention being part of a right wing lobby group, the LCC."Yes, I am a member of the london cycling campaign, I've stated this. It involves paying £40 a year, I get third party insurance and access to free lawyers for this, as well as money off in bike shops.I am not an employee or a trustee or anything.Right wing lobby group? It's a charity with a board of trustees! Please contact the charity commission with your accusation of it being a right wing lobby group and let me know how that goes :D>>"You support the expansion of Heathrow on the basis that it’s our ‘local airport’, despite all the environmental damage it has proven to cause."I am not against runway three and the reorganisation of Heathrow including work to mitigate its impact on the area, including a huge congestion zone around it.>>"You then drive a car when it suits you, directly contradicting your anti-car rhetoric."I'm not anti car, again, this is in your imagination. I'm anti too many cars.>>"You even want ice cream vans banned."Again, your imagination. I would like them not to have to idle a diesel engine.>>"I’ve never called you a halfwit, you just imagine that I do. If I was to call you anything it would be a hypocrite."You have called me a halfwit many times.

Paul James ● 220d

I'm told by someone who knows about these things that the Department for Transport guidance on signs has become more vague in recent years. This may be because so many people are appealing against PCNs.However, the suggestion is that the green 'Road Open' signs that were put up in the LTNs were non-statutory and therefore provide reasonable grounds for a successful appeal. My understanding is that, although Ealing will reject an appeal on the basis of signage initially, they are not letting any get as far as the adjudicator. The Justice Lang ruling against TfL's Streetspace programme is also being used successfully as a grounds for appeal against PCNs in Ealing apparently.Therefore these fines are essentially optional for anyone who makes a properly argued appeal. As there would be a tendency for the successful appellants to be relatively well educated and therefore tending to have higher income it makes Ealing Council's reliance on PCN revenue all the more regressive.It could be that budget constraints make it difficult for Ealing to adequately sign new restrictions but the suspicion has to be even if funding was available they are happy that many motorists are being caught out. This may be good for revenue but is undermining the value of LTN for residents - if thousands of cars are still passing through that shouldn't be then they are not doing what it says on the tin.I would agree that resorting to personal insults is immature and generally indicates the lack of well-reasoned argument.

Mark Evans ● 223d