Forum Topic

“Reminds me of the time I saw a lady on High Street Kensington being interviewed about the congestion charge extension, she said "how will the poor afford to drive" when it was clear she'd miss a fiver more than they would.And you think the "poorer members of society" can afford to run cars, or are you just more worried about the cost to you as you dispense your dirty air along the main roads into town?”Paul, your arguments always manage to make very little sense. There’s certainly no logic in there.I recall an interview I read with Mick Hucknall published after the Congestion Charge was first introduced. The multi millionaire pop star said it wasn’t really a deterrent for the wealthy as he and others could easily afford the charge, so he would happily pay it for the convenience of driving his Ferrari about. What he did say was that it would hit those least able to afford it who required their personal transport to earn a living. That hasn’t changed. It’s simply a tax, and like any tax it hits the less well off harder.Your second statement betrays your absolute prejudice towards anyone, other than you or your friends, who might drive. Nobody is breaking any laws, as long as they are taxed, insured and hold a valid licence. You always conflate your personal opinion with legitimate practices. Do you really despise so many of your fellow Londoners?And as cars get cleaner, and the internal combustion engine disappears you won’t have anything to whinge about, will you? Those emissions will stop. But presumably that won’t be enough. It never is for your type.

Simon Hayes ● 1290d

No Paul, it’s not for the people you don’t see cycling yet. The uptake will be minimal for day to day use. Anyone commuting any distance won’t use them. Those that do commute will be like you and see them as an irrelevance. I know a lot of people locally and very few, if any, would use the bike lanes other than occasionally.Your bridge analogy is otiose. The construction of a bridge, or any river crossing would usually be asked for by a sizeable number if people. There would usually be detailed cost benefit analysis carried out, feasibility studies, all time consuming and expensive. I say usually, because the Garden Bridge fiasco ignored all the accepted practices and turned out to be a white elephant. A Boris project. Like Brexit. Like active travel. Can you see the pattern of idiocy?Oh, and a river crossing is usually put in place because there’s a need for it, because there’s no alternative way to cross. As you priced in your response, most bike lanes aren’t needed because most super keen cyclists don’t and won’t use them. Because there’s an existing road network.But actually this survey isn’t about cycling, it’s about ‘clean air’, though much of what constitutes ‘unclean air’ is ignored in it. Particulates from construction, particularly demolition, are overlooked. As are gas emissions from subterranean pockets, such as those blighting the lives of residents of Southall.And, since I suspect your qualifications on the matter are zero, all this planning fails to take account of daily meteorological conditions.

Simon Hayes ● 1296d