Forum Topic

We are car nuts that focus on the imposition on drivers instead of the amazing Ealing Half itself

Typical of Ealing Todayto focus on the impact on drivers rather than the amazing Ealing Half Marathon itself."Watch Out for Ealing Half Marathon Road Closures"Why do they do this?

Paul James ● 1445d99 Comments

Why’s it always ‘with a kid in tow’?Most fanatical cyclists wouldn’t dream of being encumbered with children. It would slow them down too much!If it’s recreational cycling you want, there are plenty of off-road opportunities in the parks or the canals or river.Oh, and the current mayor of London isn’t capable of sorting anything out, be it transport, crime or housing.

Simon Hayes ● 1437d

Work out where all the cars are coming from & going to!!!No one drives for fun.Probably to work, shopping, any number of reasons

Peter Yale ● 1437d

Yes, no problem.Prior to that happening I would ensure they had some kind of road awareness & cycle behind them

Peter Yale ● 1437d

>I cycle from South Acton to Pitshanger.Would you do that on a bike with a kid in tow?

Paul James ● 1437d

It’s not illegal to own and drive a car. There’s no ‘minimum journey’ legL limit. There’s no law about what constitutes an ‘essential journey’.What there is though , is a clique of sanctimonious, self-serving bigots - such as Paul - who set themselves up as guardians of the moral high ground. These people always know what’s best for everybody else, though frequently disregard the rules they set when it suits them.

Simon Hayes ● 1437d

Yep. Read my previous contributions.Just to reiterate. LTNs caused congestion, consequently pollution.Drivers will use alternate routes.I cycle from South Acton to Pitshanger.There are plenty of cycle track, bus lanes, road space WITHOUT taking over yet more road.I need to leave 04:30, cold, dark, wet minimum.If I used public transport, need several buses or a 15/20 minute walk to bus stop.Journey time this way will double minimum.I use a car because it’s easier & comfortable

Peter Yale ● 1437d

I think you are only seeing the word from a driver's point of view.Policy based on that sort of view is never going to get us anywhere.Do you cycle at all?

Paul James ● 1437d

Through traffic is a different issue.That needs to be sorted at source, more LTNs in Hounslow for instance, to reduce the number of people that feel they must or have to drive. Work out where all the drivers coming past the hospital are coming from and where they are going etc..It's a big problem it needs london to work together to fix it, funnily enough this was the main reasons the post of London Mayor was introduced, sort out the buses and get a congestion charge in, those were and remain pretty much the only powers that post has.

Paul James ● 1437d

P.s, I’m not only thinking about myself. What I do however is give you actual facts from personal experiences, driving around

Peter Yale ● 1437d

Then you say wrongly.As I (& others) say Longfield  is entrapment.You are the ONLY 1 spouting nonsense about these schemes

Peter Yale ● 1437d

But I did answer your post Paul. Now I want to know how you socially engineer Ealing into a low car borough, when the bulk of traffic is passing through?The ideas you’ve come up with don’t work.

Simon Hayes ● 1437d

>But, how many cars would you allow to be in the borough at any one time?It's not about that, I already said. Please read the post you're replying to, the answers are in there, again though, just not the ones you want!

Paul James ● 1437d

You would know about nonsense Paul.You say ‘too many cars’, but can’t quantify an acceptable amount.Your utopian ideal about streets, shopping etc aren’t borne out by the fact that things like shops are disappearing rapidly, apart from coffee shops of course. Unfortunately a lot of what people need isn’t right on their doorsteps. As you well know.Good of you to throw in ‘London as a whole’. I don’t live in ‘London as a whole’ and not do you. Individual needs are different from household to household, right across the capital. But in Ealing it’s obvious that a lot of people do need personal transport other than bikes to get about. Many of them need that to earn a living.It’s been pointed out to you before that the infrastructure in Ealing can’t support the current population, let alone the tens of thousands of new residents to be shoehorned into new developments. That’s the real issue here, not ‘too many cars’.But, how many cars would you allow to be in the borough at any one time?

Simon Hayes ● 1437d

Peter I know you can only possibly think about yourself, you demonstrated this amply with your complete misunderstanding of the reasoning behind the left turn ban at Longfield, but having ever increasing numbers of drivers fiddling their way through backstreets was never going to be a good idea.Lower Boston Road, ambulances have been getting stuck in traffic there for years, you only started caring about it when it affected your journey I would say.

Paul James ● 1437d

>You either ban all car ownership or you allow it unfettered.This is just so much stuff and nonsense.Nobody is talking about banning cars, but things can be done to ensure they are only ever used as a last resort, which include making streets safer for walking and cycling, having more in town shopping options, even better public transport and more clubs and schools closer to where people live.Cars are already out of the reach of the majority of people Simon, consider yourself lucky you can afford to run one, many many can't, in fact the majority of people in Ealing and London as a whole can't and that's lucky for you because if they could nobody would be getting anywhere at all.

Paul James ● 1437d

You CAN cycle down Boston Rd, always COULDAs I recall the ambulance got stuck in traffic jams due to LTNs causing an impasse.Told you before & you have dreadful trouble comprehending.’When a road is congested, drivers find another route.As I did last week due to petrol queues.I shortened my journey, kept pollution down, rather than idling in stationary traffic.So that IS how it works DDDD

Peter Yale ● 1437d

"You should move. I’d suggest 1730 is probably the right time period for you."          😁          😂          🤣        👌

Rosco White ● 1437d

There you go Paul. It’s not me arguing for it, is it? Not for me to come up with support for your anti car rhetoric.What a surprise you can’t quantify your bleats about ‘too many cars’. Because there’s no fair system by which it can be achieved. You either ban all car ownership or you allow it unfettered. But the economic consequences would be unimaginable if you got your wish.Perhaps it’s ‘vehicle dependency’ you should think about. And perhaps organisations like TfL that have dragged their heels on cleaning up their own vehicles. Just 500 buses out of 9,000 are low emission in London. It will take until 2034 for the whole fleet to achieve that. So why aren’t you lobbying them with such vigour?Be careful about your asthma claims, chap. Some might disputes your assertions.And ambulances did get stuck on that road, well documented, during lockdown.You should move. I’d suggest 1730 is probably the right time period for you.

Simon Hayes ● 1437d

I don't think you can put a number on it. We have to do thing to reduce car dependency and we'll know when.I was thinking of lockdown one levels though, when people I know were saying their kids didn't have difficulty breathing, and their asthma attacks had stopped, when you COULD cycle along Boston Road with an eight year old, when ambulances COULD proceed without getting stuck in traffic jams etc...What other benefits of low motor traffic levels can you come up with Simon?

Paul James ● 1438d

Paul. The tumbleweed is rolling past and still no response from you. One might almost suspect you are avoiding a difficult question. :D

Simon Hayes ● 1439d

Come on Paul. You must have come up with some figures by now.

Simon Hayes ● 1441d

Tell LCC Lycra mafia thatPavements are roads

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Yes it is. Not all drivers are reckless, same as all cyclists don’t jump on & off pavement, jump lights & zebras, use mobile phones, have no lights, drive wrong way down 1 way roads, etc

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Compulsory cycling proficiency tests as part of the National Curriculum?  Why not?  That happens in other countries and it teaches road sense.

Philippa Bond ● 1441d

Cyclist obey every rule in the Highway Code.Yawn yawn.That’s not  how it works DDDOh & motorised vehicles have registration numbers on the road.Cyclist have same use of roads (but demand more more more) have no reg  plate

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Anywhere, move over, out the way. Share

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Hear hear, do let OTHERS share them. Cars, trucks etc

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Paul You rant on about ‘too many cars’. What figure do you suggest is appropriate for our roads? Come on, an actual quantity please, as calculated by your towering intellect.And similarly, what’s an appropriate number for, say, lorries?Skip trucks?Delivery vans?Motorcycles?

Simon Hayes ● 1441d

But people won’t use them Paul. A lot don’t use the existing ones and not because they make cycling slow.

Simon Hayes ● 1441d

I thank my lucky stars, now if you could extend my exclusion to everyone else you would make a lot of people happy.

N V Brooks ● 1441d

Whinge whinge whinge.....

Simon Hayes ● 1441d

Of course, there are the cyclists who endanger others. Just ask my daughter’s friend who was badly injured by a cyclist failing to stop at the zebra crossing she was using a couple of weeks ago. All the motor vehicles had stopped though.The coward then cycled off without checking the child was ok.But keep on whingeing about non cycling road users Paul. Better still, stick to twitter and your tiny coterie I’d like-minded bitter chums.

Simon Hayes ● 1441d

I'm ignoring you because, yes, many skip trucks ARE driven like rally cars, and Ealing is RIFE with pavement parking.

Paul James ● 1441d

It's illegal to ride a bike on a pavement that's alongside a carriageway.

Paul James ● 1441d

Yes, that's how it works and of course doubtless skip trucks being driven of kev ally cars is something that you see every day as well hey pass all of the (equally non existent) cars parked on pavements. Can't really believe any point that you make any more as the sweeping generalisations and exaggerations invalidate all that you post.

N V Brooks ● 1441d

You could ride on the pavement, like many do?!!!!!

Rosco White ● 1441d

>Seems fair, everyone sharesSo my eight year old and I have got to share with a skip truck being driven like a rally car without any protection between us?That's not sharing.

Paul James ● 1441d

My point is cycle lanes slow me down, but I want more and more of them so OTHER People can use them.

Paul James ● 1441d

>Contribution financially- zilch.>Been through this time & time againYes we have. Roads are not paid for from "road tax" but  paid for by council tax and general taxation, which we all pay.You're still not comprehending this I see.

Paul James ● 1441d

Move in, into the dooring zone?

Paul James ● 1441d

Paul, you are clearly not the sharpest. You assume that’s what I think. You are wrong, as usual.Building miles of cycling infrastructure won’t cause a sudden surge in cycling numbers, especially for commuting. You may have noticed more people are working from home now, but those that still have to travel into town are likely to do it by public transport. Many reasons, such as distance, weather, maybe a lack of a bike or lack of secure storage when they get there.London is a massive place. It’s not practical for most people to cycle long distances, even if they wanted to. Sure, there’s the leisure cycling but - which has declined a lot since the end of lockdown.You are typical LCC. You see this as some battle you have to win. But life’s not like that, is it? Now you feel betrayed by the councillors you thought were on your side. You can’t understand that the majority don’t agree with you. So you have to lash out with silly accusations , such as your original post.Please grow up!

Simon Hayes ● 1441d

Why? Seems quite a sensible comment.There used to be a cycling proficiency test to make riders competent, build up skills.The legal scooter riders need to do an online test.This tells them not to ride on foot way, teaches them traffic light systems , in case they choose to ignore.However this never ever ever happens.That’s not how it works. I never see it everyday DDD

Peter Yale ● 1441d

How do? Got roads, fit for cars buses, vans, lorries, scooters & cyclists.Seems fair, everyone shares

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Or cyclists could move in

Peter Yale ● 1441d

No issue with people cycling, do so myself.I  object to their (cyclists) demands,dictating how much road they want.Dedicated lanes, roads shut off.Contribution financially- zilch.Been through this time & time again

Peter Yale ● 1441d

Don't, at this late stage, even begin to try and convince anybody that you are thinking about anybody other than yourself. The Paul James centric view of the universe is just that. We should all be resigned to accept that it only applies to one person Paul and that is you.

N V Brooks ● 1441d

>If "cycle lanes slow you down" then, QED, there is no need for them.Again Nigel, I'm not thinking about myself. Please don't judge me by your standards.

Paul James ● 1442d

> but if they're that unconfident should they be on the road anyway?Possibly the most stupid think I've seen written for a long time...

Paul James ● 1442d

>But the stats show that very few people cycle, You see, for me this is a problem that needs to be solved.For you it's a desirable state of affairs.

Paul James ● 1442d

"I suppose more timid cyclists need cycle lanes, but if they're that unconfident should they be on the road anyway?"And then your next sentence says they shouldn't be on the pavement.  Why on earth do you think they are on the pavement?Don't you think that could be because of the some very aggressive, selfish and inconsiderate motorists who don't know the width of their motors, or how to share the roads and think they have the right to overtake and everyone and everything in their path whether or not it is safe and there is adequate room.  (Some pavements BTW are officially shared cycling and pedestrian routes.)Maybe they should not be allowed to overtake moving cyclists as can happen elsewhere.

Philippa Bond ● 1442d

I’m not scared Paul. If people want to cycle then that’s absolutely fine by me. But the stats show that very few people cycle, and not many more are likely to despite all the infrastructure put in.You just like to whinge about things that don’t suit you.

Simon Hayes ● 1442d

Also they are enclosed, and often narrow in a way that means you can't pass the person in front.This isn't a problem BTW, but, as I say, it slows me down, which as you say, I don't have problem with at all if it means more people are able to cycle.The more people cycling the more people cycling will get to help them cycle, which I think is what Simon et al are very, very scared of.

Paul James ● 1442d

>All we want is fairnessIf you can't see that right now, today there is very little fairness going on as far as getting around is concerned no wonder you're having trouble taking in the views of people that want just that for our roads and streets.

Paul James ● 1442d

Cyclists, like motorists, motorists come in many different types and the ones that like segregated cycle routes tend to be the ones that adhere to the rules of the road and wait patiently at lights. My experience is that compliance is almost total on local segregated lanes.Professional cyclists (that is to say delivery riders not Mark Cavendish) and cycling commuters tend to be more cavalier about the rules.Paul is right that there is a trade off between safety and speed but the point is quite a nuanced one. I attracted alot of abuse on social media for raising it as an issue for Cycleway 9. That quite clearly isn't generating quite the increase in cyclists that TfL are claiming but I argued that this was not necessarily a big problem because it was mainly used by leisure cyclists and commuting cyclists were choosing other routes because the cycleway was slowing their journey. Because cycling commuters will go up and down the cycleway ten times a week and a leisure cyclist maybe only once, total numbers of cyclist in any given day other than the weekend are not going to rise that quickly.My intention was to say that this could be seen as a sign that the cycleway was successful because encouraging broader participation is as important as boosting the absolute number of journeys. However, for the more blinkered advocates of cycling on social media, nuance is not an option. Anybody making a point that could be interpreted as critical of these schemes is immediately seen as an enemy which makes constructive discussion with them impossible. Paul has fallen into this trap by interpreting a perfectly well-intentioned public information announcement as a piece of pro-car propaganda. This attitude alienates a lot of people who are sympathetic to improved cycling infrastructure but recognise that the issues involved are quite complicated and an easy solution is usually a bad one.

Mark Evans ● 1443d

No1 wants any danger to cyclists.How do cycle lanes slow you down???All we want is fairness, not a cycling mafia dictating road space, road closures etc DDDThat is not how it works

Peter Yale ● 1443d

Yep, me & all other motorists

Peter Yale ● 1443d

Waiting at traffic lights? Cyclists? Whatever next?

Simon Hayes ● 1443d

Rosco White ● 1443d

You are missing Paul's point. Cycle lanes are often slower because they generally introduce extra waits at traffic lights to maintain full segregation. This is why some cyclists stay with general traffic.Paul's point is a perfectly legitimate one - he is believes increased commute times for cyclists are justifiable if they are offset by reduced collisions.

Mark Evans ● 1443d

Never needed cycle lanes me, perfectly happy pootling along the roads just observing the road rules, keeping my wits about me and not wearing headphones.I suppose more timid cyclists need cycle lanes, but if they're that unconfident should they be on the road anyway?Plod/Council however definitely need to crackdown hard on pavement cyclists and e-scooters, someone's gonna be killed V soon.

Rosco White ● 1443d

Cycle lanes slow you down?!!!I hope you’ve lobbied for the removal of all the very expensive ones shoved into London streets in recent years.Perhaps you need to consider the bigger picture, that road space is for all road users. Not just you and your loved ones, much as you and they may feel entitled to having roads to themselves.

Simon Hayes ● 1443d

If "cycle lanes slow you down" then, QED, there is no need for them.

N V Brooks ● 1443d

Judging me by your own standards again Simon.I want better cycling facilities for other people not myself, I rode into London for years along Uxbridge Road, embankment etc.. cycle lanes slow me down.I want my loved ones and friends etc.. to be able to be safe when out, that's all.

Paul James ● 1443d

Strangely enough Paul, most would say the same about you. Everything is about what you want and how unfair/immoral/illegal/stupid/greedy/selfish/etc everybody else is.

Simon Hayes ● 1444d

It's all about you Peter.

Paul James ● 1444d

Yes, luckily there’s no evening edition, 1 less journey

Peter Yale ● 1444d

Did you have to go back after in the car for a newspaper?

Simon Hayes ● 1444d

Completely ruined my weekend. Due to road closures, my round trip in the car takes 1 minute 40 seconds (assuming I leave engine running & park on pavement outside shop)The walk took over 2 & a half mins.Before Jamesy throws toys out of his pram ,yes it’s an essential journey.I buy my fags & booze

Peter Yale ● 1444d

The 'half' is currently lead story on the front page.Good things come to he (or she) who waits.

N V Brooks ● 1444d

Let’s hope none of the participants travelled to the event by car. That really would be taking the mick.You might have realised by now Philippa that it can take some days for ‘news’ to make it onto this site. All to do with staffing levels and a lack of local content providers....

Simon Hayes ● 1444d

I thought it odd that there was no mention of the Half Marathon and no mention of the brilliant Mini Mile  the previous day.  I posted about it.  It was a sell out and apparently there were 1700 participants...  plus their parents and supporters of course together with all the marshalls and organisers.

Philippa Bond ● 1444d

No incidents doesn't mean safe NigelTo any sensible person that is exactly what it does mean as well you know.There really is no mileage in being obtuse for the sake of perpetuating a unique, fundamentally flawed, point if view.

N V Brooks ● 1444d

No incidents doesn't mean safe Nigel!Motorways are "safe", unless you want to cross one on foot...

Paul James ● 1445d

I couldn't work out the logic of your response - it seems to have no relation to my original post.Just to be clear, I have no problem with safety critical road restrictions being enforced by fines. My issue is that if a large number of these fines are being issued at a single junction then there is a problem and the intention of these restrictions is being compromised. Councils have a big disincentive to deal with the problem because of the revenue that it brings about and therefore safety is being compromised. It is right that media highlight when this is happening to force councils to act.

Mark Evans ● 1445d

Then you need to be clear about the location as there is no box junction directly outside A&E. There is absolutely no justification for a 20mph speed limit on a dual carriageway, there has, according to TfL, been one fatality on that stretch of road since 2010 when a bus hit a pedestrian at the junction with Lower Boston Road.It must be one of the safest stretches of major road in the borough but, as usual you never let facts get in the way of your narrow view do you Paul?

N V Brooks ● 1445d

As I said Paul, you give the impression that it is. Always whingeing, here and on other social media.Anyway, I hope you’ll be out and about on October 6, photographing the removal of the LTN barriers. Maybe you should ask for one for your garden, complete with dead and dying plants and obscure signage. Then you can indulge yourself without ever needing to trouble the rest of us.

Simon Hayes ● 1445d

You couldn't be more wrong really!

Paul James ● 1445d

Paul, you give the impression that your life is one big disappointment.

Simon Hayes ● 1445d

>As no private motor vehicles are actually allowed on the ramp to A&E unless in an emergency then the fines are perfectly justified.I'm talking about the one outside the hospital here.>It's a dual carriageway anyway and should never be 20 mph in the first place,Outside a hospital, people have died on this stretch of road, of course it should be 20mph.

Paul James ● 1445d

It was amazing, slightly disappointed that wasn't the headline here as you can tell!

Paul James ● 1445d

No need , everyone’ knows (except you in blinkered & constant denial)DDDDDDD

Peter Yale ● 1445d

>How can to be unsafe for a vehicle to turn left at a marked Give Way junction but still turn right across traffic? How can it be OK for Cyclists or scooter users to use the same junction without looking or cutting across the pavements?You're missing the point. The stated aim of that ban was to REDUCE the number of movements by vehicles at the junction which is used by many pedestrians, which has made it FAR safer.> And targeting those who are fully insured, taxed and legally tested to use roads.  Ah, a dig at cycling.>The same with LTNs,Ealing LTNs originally had bollards, no chance of getting a fine there for going through it.>As usual it all comes down to overpopulation of the planetNo it doesn't. It's too many cars...

Paul James ● 1445d

>Shall we bang on about cyclist for you & their illegal activities?Shall you?! :D Why yes!

Paul James ● 1445d

Ealing Half: such a fantastic event. Very sad that I didn't get to run it this year due to a clash with a different race. It's one of my favourite half marathons mainly down to the massive support on the route by all the wonderful Ealing residents.

Paul Scullion ● 1445d

As no private motor vehicles are actually allowed on the ramp to A&E unless in an emergency then the fines are perfectly justified. As to "hundreds of people" being find for exceeding the 20 mph speed limit what evidence do you have of the numbers? Have you submitted an FOI request?  Probably not as factual data isn't your strongest point Paul is it?It's a dual carriageway anyway and should never be 20 mph in the first place,

N V Brooks ● 1445d

Paul, Theres a big difference between having mandatory signage and markings when they are there for good reason.That primarily is to improve road safety and to mediate traffic flow.But what we have currently is a culture which is contriving to create fineable offences to suit fiscal gain and not actually deal with the real problem by solving it properly.How can to be unsafe for a vehicle to turn left at a marked Give Way junction but still turn right across traffic? How can it be OK for Cyclists or scooter users to use the same junction without looking or cutting across the pavements?The actual data for Longfield Ave was manipulated to suit a policy and desire of a lobbying action group.  But it does not solve the problem.As for no accidents. These are not being collated properly. Stand there at any time of a day and you will see buses in particular sound horns and brake hard at mainly two wheeled riders of all sorts and pedestrians who seem to be completely devoid of any for on kerb drill.If road safety for all users is really the prime objective then it would be prudent to have a camera on the Junction and recored any vehicle that fails to stop at the junction ( which has always been a mandatory give way. or replace the give way with a Stop Line. If you fail to observe those warnings then you get a traffic offence penalty.This of course won't stop a Two wheeled rider but that's where Traffic Police need to be reintroduced and Road regulations enforced for ALL road users.But no. It's all about money. And targeting those who are fully insured, taxed and legally tested to use roads.  And this starts to create contempt and resentment.The same with LTNs, I doubt many would object to all minor single lane roads / residential streets being a 15mph zone and HGVs banned other than for actual deliveries.  But that does not make money.As for the signs on LTN's Changed three times because they were not legal or in the correct positions.From a Cycling point of view roads still with ruts pothole and bumps and poor pavements for pedestrians.And this weeks episodes of just the slightest hiccup show how the vast majority of this nations working people are at the mercy of the transport industry and how frail the infrastructure is and dependent on it all functioning. That affects almost everyone one way or another. No matter how much we dislike it.As usual it all comes down to overpopulation of the planet and so far this is the area most brushed under the sofa.

Raymond Havelock ● 1445d

Usual anti car rhetoric from Sadiq JamesShall we bang on about cyclist for you & their illegal activities?Are you a shoemaker, the cobblers you spout

Peter Yale ● 1445d

>but if a large number of fines are being issued at a junction then the arrangement is dysfunctional.What's dysfunctional there is a question we should ask.For instance, fining drivers for driving up on the pavement to let other drivers through? You think narrowing the pavement is what should be done for instance, instead of fining the drivers' doing it?Or the fines people get for stopping in the box junction outside the A&E dept in Ealing, remove the box?No motor vehicle signs at LTNs, four of them, two up high two down low, drivers still driving through so remove the signs?20mph Speed limit signs outside the hospital with hundreds of people a day getting fined by the speed camera. Take the signs and speed camera down rather than issue fines?hmm..Not sure I'm with you on this one!

Paul James ● 1445d

That seems grossly unfair to me. A quick Google seems to indicate that the last time this site covered the Longfield Avenue issue was back in 2018 and more than half of the article was given over to a council explanation of why increased pedestrian safety was an important reason for the change.On the issue of motoring PCNs, as a cyclist who rarely drives I do think they are problematic. Councils are becoming increasingly dependent on them due to government  cutting back on funding to local authorities. They are a particularly regressive tax because the more often you drive the more often you are likely to be fined so a very high proportion of these PCNs go to private hire drivers and delivery drivers who are self-employed and for whom a single PCN could wipe out over half of their earnings for the day. Obviously road restrictions need to be enforced but if a large number of fines are being issued at a junction then the arrangement is dysfunctional. The lack of pedestrian casualties at Longfield Avenue is just a matter of luck because lots of people are still driving through it. The council have an incentive to accept the status quo because they are bringing in lots of cash so they don't take steps to increase compliance. In highlighting junctions that are generating lots of fines the media are not just representing the interests of drivers but of pedestrians whose safety is being compromised by council's prioritising revenue generation.

Mark Evans ● 1445d

It's mostly a comment about the many media outlets' (particularly this one!) obsession with making car drivers out as victims of a conspiracy to extract money from them.For instance, instead of publishing that the Longfield Avenue banned turn has meant there have been no pedestrian casualties there since it was introduced Ealing Today has gone for the "drivers scammed by road signs" angle.But is was mostly to get Ealing today to tweet this in its own voice...

Paul James ● 1445d

Sorry Paul, I'm really struggling to understand the point you are making here. Can you explain?

Mark Evans ● 1445d

All be told my main reason for posting this was this... :)https://twitter.com/ealingtodaycouk/status/1442154830240178180

Paul James ● 1445d

Paul, I'm sorry but you are making a bit of a fool of yourself. Your stance is particularly bizarre because making people aware of road closures will discourage them from driving.

Gordon Southwell ● 1445d

Maybe loosen his lycra?It's a tad too tight, and causing a certain discomfort which begets frustration which then manifests itself via incomprehensible outbursts?            😆

Rosco White ● 1445d

“Yep, one day in the year, om a Sunday shouldn't be too much to ask.”We all pray to be relieved of Paul’s sanctimonious whingeing for st least one day a week.

Simon Hayes ● 1445d

Yep, one day in the year, om a Sunday shouldn't be too much to ask.

David Burke ● 1445d

"Typical"Really? Evidence of previous 'transgressions'?You really should try to broaden your very narrow view of the world (or at least provide a shred of evidence once in a while).

N V Brooks ● 1445d

Exactly Mr Hayes.I was going to write the same reply- why do you think.However it’s giving him airspace to spout his unbelievable nonsense

Peter Yale ● 1445d

Blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain. So that people going about their business by road will avoid the closed roads. Those ptinclude delivery drivers and the like.It’s called public service information and it’s standard in the media across the country, and has been for years.It’s not a conspiracy to upset you Paul. Although it’s amusing to see your outrage on here, you anti car activist.

Simon Hayes ● 1445d