Originally posted by Russell Pearson on the ChiswickW4 forum:Paul Wheeler is on the ball re the mayor election, congestion, polls, the Labour Party, and the LCC. He’s a cycling campaigner and Labour activist and offers solutions. On the Labour Party he notes:“ A party transport policy dictated by covert groups of aggressive cyclists and well-heeled residents using emergency powers for their own ends is not a good look – and frankly a divisive distraction – for a progressive party motivated by social justice.”https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-last-rites-for-the-covid-ltns/
N V Brooks ● 135d32 Comments
Vehicles also have to be fully tested if over 3 years old, fully taxed, have to pay for permits to park, have to pay to park, pay huge amounts of tax on fuel, pay tax on the insurance. Without that income, roads and most other forms of public transport would not be sustainable, not would many of the other things that the state infrastructure provides and that includes most aspects.And it is more than obvious that all that revenue generated from vehicles does not go back into the road network which is woefully poor from pavements and safe cycling surfaces to a properly joined up network.
Raymond Havelock ● 119d
you stray off topic.We are talking about use of the public highway.Listen carefully. Bicycles can use the roads willy nilly & contribute not 1 single penny.Cars have to have insurance.Cyclists can disobey any rules that they wish, they are unlicensed & unregulated.Car drivers risk fines & points on their license.However the cyclist demand, shout, stamp, scream that they should be given over road space & have more rights than vehicles.Been through this before, & that is how it works
Peter Yale ● 119d
>Insurance- cars, everything.What has insurance got to do with road funding?>Impunity- whatWhat has this got to do with road funding?Please stay on topic!
Paul James ● 119d
No point arguing with Paul on this. I suspect he fell off his bicycle once and had all the common sense knocked out of him. He believes wearing a cycling helmet makes car drivers more careless around cyclists!Justvthe sort of twisted logic adopted by halfwits that is rapidly making London pretty much the shittiest place to live in Britain.
Simon Hayes ● 122d
Fish? NothingInsurance- cars, everything.Impunity- what Cyclists jump red lights, no consequence Ride on pavement, no consequence No lights, no consequence Anything else?
Peter Yale ● 122d
>I’m talking about vehicle tax/excise- cyclists noneBecause it's a charge for polluting in public, many vehicles are exempt from it, including cycles.>Insurance, cyclists noneWhy have you raised insurance, what's that got to do with the price of fish?>Cyclists ride with impunityWhat?
Paul James ● 122d
I’m talking about vehicle tax/excise- cyclists noneInsurance, cyclists noneCyclists ride with impunity Sure I & others have explained to you before
Peter Yale ● 123d
Paul, everyone pays for the roads. That’s why closing them off to benefit a tiny minority of LCC fanatics is wrong.But you seem incapable of understanding why the majority of people are against them.
Simon Hayes ● 123d
Local roads are funded from council tax. Take a look on your council tax bill.And roads in general are funded by income tax payers.SOME drivers pay Vehicle Excise Duty to pollute in public, this goes into the general taxation pot, it's not used for roads.More here.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
Paul James ● 123d
All been said before, cyclists want more of the road, yet >contribute not a single pennyYou might have said this before, but it's still utter nonsense ;)
Paul James ● 123d
Yes at the expense of all other forms of transport.All been said before, cyclists want more of the road, yet contribute not a single penny
Peter Yale ● 123d
This is the same TfL that’s quietly culling bus services on less profitable routes, and certainly isn’t consulting or publicising that policy in the way it’s pushing cycling. I wonder why?
Simon Hayes ● 124d
Well, you learn something every day. Did you know, and I realise that it may come as a shock, that cars are also a form of transport which form an essential part of the 'blend' of transport in any city. Yet Tfl (or Transport failing Londoners) seem to ignore the needs of this part of the blend.
N V Brooks ● 124d
Transport for London , the clue is in the name cycling is a form of transport therefore TFL has an interest in itSimple really.
David Burke ● 124d
Worryingly it’s promoted by TFL so a fair or unbiased result is......the last thing that you will get.
N V Brooks ● 125d
There’s a “ have your say on the cycle way “ in today’s Metro (free newspaper)Whilst it is regarding C58, it apparently encourages everyone to have their say.This is vitally important in any aspect of these cycle highways & LTNs ,as they are foisted upon the public regardless of whether they are opposed or not.Worryingly it’s promoted by TFL so a fair or unbiased result is questionable
Peter Yale ● 125d
Oh, I don't know. They work as a collective, seek to dominate, they consider resistance futile and can only work if they have bits of technology attached. All they lack is a queen to lead them, but hold on a minute......
N V Brooks ● 127d
People that sometimes ride bikes are not the Borg Nigel, as much as you like to think so :D
Paul James ● 127d
Like all fanatical factions they find it hard to accept different opinions within the ranks. No nuance, no moderation, just our way is the only way. A lot of cyclists will have noting to do with the LCC and its offshoots locally, befausebof that fanaticism.
Simon Hayes ● 129d
Good grief, what is going on? One cycling mantra chanter turning on another. What do they call that ? Lycracide?
N V Brooks ● 129d
I am actually quite happy to form a balanced opinion based on a series of sources unlike those who chant the monotonal LCC mantra . I find the source of the criticism in this instance of interest. If you have an issue with Russell's posts then you need to resolve this on the Chiswick forum surely
N V Brooks ● 130d
Paul Wheeler writes for himself. Russell Pearson is particularly keen on him - this is not the first time that he has quoted him. Paul Wheeler does say somewhere that he will not accept any comments on his pieces unless he agrees with them. So I am not in the least surprised that you have chosen to refer to his opinions on here. He just happens to be someone who agrees with your views or vice versa.
Philippa Bond ● 131d
Cue Paul James.Blessedly quiet of late, must be tough when even the Labour cycling supporters doubt LTNs.
N V Brooks ● 135d
Also from the article - "........ not a single Conservative-run council in London has supported their own government’s “active travel” policy.""Ealing’s about turn mirrored that of Labour-run Harrow (slightly lost in the run up to the mayoral election), which removed not only its LTNs but also its Transport for London cycle lanes, citing a clear lack of local support for either. To these two can be added Labour Redbridge, which, perhaps wisely, withdrew support from proposed LTNs in early 2020. Liberal Democrat-controlled Sutton also stepped back from its programme of road closures and it is noticeable that not a single Conservative-run council in London has supported their own government’s “active travel” policy."
Rosco White ● 135d