| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:CPZ ‘consultation’ | |
| Posted by: | Simon Hayes | |
| Date/Time: | 27/11/24 17:30:00 |
| I see the simple minded and arrogant cycling lobbyists are still trying to make out they’ve got the answers. They really haven’t. Firstly, car club vehicles aren’t always available when needed, particularly in an emergency. I know someone who missed his father’s final moments because he couldn’t get a car to get to the hospital. If the demand for vehicles increases, the car clubs will increase the numbers on the road. Simple supply and demand economics that even a halfwit should understand. You are also surrendering your data to the car club. Doubtless they subsidise the service by flogging your details. Ubers are private vehicles. Just fancy that. One or two are parked on my road and owned by residents. They pay for a permit. Shall we tell them to get rid of their cars? Neither Dominik nor Paul understands what CPZs are about. It’s not a permit to park outside your house, it’s a way of stopping other people from doing so. They are supposed to make life better for residents, many of whom rely on a vehicle for a myriad of reasons. It’s not car storage, it’s parking. I bet Dominik and Paul don’t insist on all their visitors use alternative modes of transport, and lecture them on the evils of car use. There are plenty of allegedly car free developments in London now, though the estate agents always forget to mention this in the sales pitch. Lots of bewildered new homeowners scrabbling to find somewhere to park. I wonder why they aren’t told beforehand? Patronising Eric, who is 80 and suffered a broken foot courtesy of the dangerous platforms at Ealing Broadway earlier this year, really shows up both Dominik and Paul. Do you take the same attitude with all older people you encounter. Or those with mobility issues? If either of you lives long enough you might regret your arrogant stupidity. Which brings us to CPZ costs. The law is very clear that there is no mechanism under the Road Traffic Act 1984 to use parking permits as a revenue raising scheme. That was established in the case of Attfield v LB Barnet in 2013. Councils flout this because they know people won’t challenge it. The schemes should cover costs only, but permit charges are increased without consultation, creating what’s called a surplus, used for other transport schemes such as concessionary bus fares. At some point somebody is going to challenge a local authority again on this, because it is a tax and unlawful. If you think it’s okay to ignore the law then don’t get uppity if someone robs your house, punches you on the nose or ignores a cyclist on the road. Of course, one way to reduce car ownership would be for the cycling zealots to get rid of theirs. They don’t though, including the sanctimonious twit on my road who used to ferry his kids to and from school every day. Every time he or his wife take their car out they add to the problem he, and Paul and Dominik moan about ad nauseam. I hope Paul still isn’t abusing his son by dragging him out on bike rides and filming his confrontations with other road users. Poor lad will be scarred for life! |