Southwark-wide CPZ

[Rockets]

11 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

Yep you sound like a reliable unbiased narrator giving a trustworthy and actuate account. 😂

You've got a admit they have a much better handle on the way the meeting went than you ....probably because they were there whilst you, clearly, were not and were just taking a wild (biased) stab in the dark about what actually happened......;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

What I have yet to hear, is why people think that everyone else should subsidise free on street car storage, on top of all the other externalised costs of motoring visited upon others. 

[mr.chicken]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

You've got a admit they have a much better handle on the way the meeting went than you

Why do I need to admit something that appears to be untrue? I suppose that is basically the only way all the pro-car pro-pollution arguments you keep putting forth can hold any weight, so why not this as well?

[first mate]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

You've got a admit they have a much better handle on the way the meeting went than you ....probably because they were there whilst you, clearly, were not and were just taking a wild (biased) stab in the dark about what actually happened......;-)

Precisely. 

[Charles Martel]

On 17/08/2023 at 00:02, mr.chicken said:

Yep you sound like a reliable unbiased narrator giving a trustworthy and actuate account. 😂

Of course I am biased. I am biased in favour of democracy and the rule of law. Am I wrong to think that elected councillors should follow the law?

You were not at the meeting in 2019 were you? Many other people were. If any them want to dispute my account they can do so. You can read McAsh’s own account below.

At the meeting a man from Southwark Cyclists stood at the front of the room waving his arms and bellowing out a rant against “walls of metal” lining the streets. He was clearly trying to use his emotional state, real or pretended, to make his point. This was extreme and out of place at a meeting where other people were using their experience, reason and logic to make their points. Other normal people spoke in favour of having a CPZ in their area, but none for his reasons or in his hysterical manner.

Southwark Cyclists wrote a blog post about the CPZ prior to the meeting.

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/getting-parking-under-control-in-east-dulwich/

If you read this you will see that it is so similar to Southwark Council’s current policy it could have been paraphrased from the Southwark Cyclists website. There are fewer people in Southwark Cyclists than there are living on Landells Road, or any road in the area. Why should this totally unrepresentative pressure group be setting policy which is then dictated by the council to the rest of the entire borough?

Why? Because they, like you, are useful idiots who allow Southwark council to green wash their plans to use controlled parking to raise revenue. Southwark Cyclists are part of a small, but well organised and vociferous minority who think councils should use resident parking fees as a deterrent to car ownership. One such group argue that the current cost of a parking permit is below what they consider to be the market rate. For Southwark they suggest the fee be raised to £1333.

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/26052023-central-london-councils-missing-out-on-millions-in-parking-revenue

The problem with this of course is that the relevant law specifically prohibits the use of controlled parking for the raising of revenue. A point McAsh understood and clearly stated in June 2019. According to 2019 McAsh “Controlled parking should only be implemented with the consent of residents in any zone.” This is in line with what the relevant law states. 2023 McAsh seems to believe he can just put a CPZ wherever he likes and watch the fines and permit charges roll in.

People who disagree should read and sign the petition.

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

[rjsmall]

19 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What I have yet to hear, is why people think that everyone else should subsidise free on street car storage, on top of all the other externalised costs of motoring visited upon others. 

You could apply that argument to any form of taxation - should people who don't have children have to contribute to schools, should people who don't use libraries have to contribute to those, should people who don't ride a bike contribute to the building of cycle lanes etc etc.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's different. In your analogy, it would be like taking tax payers money and using it to subsidise private education. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people to pay for the storage of a private motor vehicle.

Your car is not a public service.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Your car is not a public service.

Neither, of course, is your bicycle - are you now arguing that cyclists should be paying a contribution towards their use of the paved roads, or pedestrians their use of pavements? Maybe someone with a baby carriage should be paying extra. The roads were built and paved for the public benefit of all - and the sides of the roads were designed - in most streets - to allow vehicles to be parked up. Without such an allowance we would be forced to move to the 15 minute cities that people talk about - logically where we work, shop, bank, are cared for if sick in our own tiny enclaves.  This is a desire to move back to a medieval village existence. Not for me, I'm afraid.

But actually, the car hatred is all about class war and envy. Destroy the kulaks and their cars. Again, not for me, I'm afraid. Such a political vision is of course one it is legitimate to hold (unless, like your predecessors, you do actually kill all the kulaks) - but I suspect, even in socialist Dulwich, it isn't that popular

[malumbu]

Oh dear Penguin, down the manufactured culture war nonsense.  It's not cars and motoring that bothers me, it's the whole entitlement stuff.  And roads were designed to carry a variety of road vehicles from donkey to 44 tonne attics.  Ie to transport goods and people not as a car park.

[mr.chicken]

That's amazing! People are jealous of @Penguin68 and paying for parking is just like being murdered so people can steal all your stuff.

I'm now unsure if you're actually a false flag operative  on the payroll of the all powerful bicycle illuminati bent on discrediting the pro pollution lobby by presenting outrageously extreme viewpoints.

[snowy]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Oh dear Penguin, down the manufactured culture war nonsense.  It's not cars and motoring that bothers me, it's the whole entitlement stuff.  And roads were designed to carry a variety of road vehicles from donkey to 44 tonne attics.  Ie to transport goods and people not as a car park.

What did the Romans ever do  for us etc (apart from expand the iron age road network).

And the existence of turnpikes disproves the built for public benefit theory and even then they weren't built for cars.

The boom in tarmac roads came from the uptake of cycling at the end of the nineteenth century who lobbied government for better roads.

Its not until the 50s that you see roads built for cars primarily in mind.

 

/typo edit 

Edited August 18, 2023 by snowy

[Rockets]

Are you advocating we rewind to Roman times or the end of the 19th century? Motorised vehicles, along with the steam train, revolutionised the way we lived our lives and the development (and spread) of our cities and towns - are you suggesting we undo all of that? In fact, if it were not for the train (primarily) and the car there wouldn't be a Dulwich as we know it today.

[snowy]

So many non sequiturs in your response i'm not sure where to begin

Edited August 18, 2023 by snowy
Typo

[first mate]

James McAsh recently said that the aim of CPZ was not to stop residents using their cars, which is interesting, given he is setting the borough wide policy. 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

James McAsh recently said that the aim of CPZ was not to stop residents using their cars, which is interesting, given he is setting the borough wide policy. 

Maybe the more they use them, the more revenue opportunities there are. The council may be conflicted - they think the money tree is morally wrong, but it is the money tree. Chopping it down makes no fiscal sense.

[heartblock]

Quote

And the existence of turnpikes disproves the built for public benefit theory and even then they weren't built for cars.

The boom in tarmac roads came from the uptake of cycling at the end of the nineteenth century who lobbied government for better roads.

Its not until the 50s that you see roads built for cars primarily in mind.

Agreed, which is weird as I’m always being told that very old A roads in existence pre 1860 such as East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane were ‘built and designed for cars'. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by heartblock

[snowy]

Lordship Lane in 1860

 

[DesignThinking]

[Rockets]

Ha ha...your pictures are brilliant!

 

Honestly, the fact someone actually spent time to do that...hilarious....be careful because by your own measure what should the council charge if you use a cycle lane.....? Also, how much should I be charged every time I walk to Lordship Lane?

5 hours ago, snowy said:

Lordship Lane in 1860

 

 Not a bicycle in sight but a couple of horse-drawn vehicles using the road...;-)

Edited August 19, 2023 by Rockets

[DesignThinking]

[first mate]

Just substitute the private cars with zip cars, bike hangars, charging electric cars and loads of hire scooters and e-bikes and we may not be much further forward.

The other thought is if enough pressure is applied some or even many households may go for the front garden car parking/dropped kerb option. Not great for the environment but... Would this also mean nothing else could be put there (thinking bikes, hangars, zip cars etc)?

Edited August 19, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

34 minutes ago, DesignThinking said:

Ha ha...the clip art vibe is so strong in this one!

 

I can't wait for the too many bike lanes can cause problems for all road users version too!

Or the one on floating bus stops causing problems for all road users too.

 

Or shared cycle and pedestrian space..

 

And so the list goes on....

Edited August 19, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

When on earth will we get the Eureka moment that there may be a valid point Rocks?  Do you ever see the counterargument rather than dismiss everything out of hand.  A perfectly valid question.

 

You can't even acknowledge nice infographics.

[Rockets]

Because when the argument is so biased, blinkered, sensationally engorged and so ludicrously skewed to help justify the council's agenda as those infographics are they deserve ridicule and calling out for what they are.....

Edited August 20, 2023 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Because when the argument is so biased, blinkered, sensationally engorged and so ludicrously skewed to help justify the council's agenda as those infographics are they deserve ridicule and calling out for what they are.....

That woke leftie agenda of "make the place a bit nicer and a bit less car-dominated".

The wholly undemocratic agenda of "give people a few more options to travel around that don't rely on ownership and use of a car".

Those agendas? The ones that many councils around the country are bringing in via one form or another?

What evil bastards those councils are! Why can't they just plough a motorway through Dulwich College grounds to solve the South Circular problem? Honestly, no ambition...