Drivers pay enough

York Press: Drivers pay enough Drivers pay enough

COUN Dave Merrett seems intent on trying to cut vehicle traffic congestion in the York city centre.

I feel this is most unfair, as car owners have to pay high vehicle tax, insurance and maintenance costs and then be told which roads and bridges they can use.

I believe car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose.

Why should car users have to pay for public transport as well as paying expenses for a car, only to leave it at home?

It’s about time the Government introduced a pay-as-you-drive scheme so car users only paid tax and insurances for days they decided to use their vehicle.

Otherwise there is no financial incentive for car owners to leave their vehicles at home.

Paul Bowes, Cherrywood Crescent, Fulford, York.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:05pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Paying insurance and maintenance costs has nothing to do with a right to drive.
We pay insurance for own financial protection in case we hurt ourselves, others or our vehicles. It's not a penalty, it's for our own good.
Maintenance is expensive but a mechanic's hourly rate has no relation to any right to drive. Parts for any machine are expensive, computers, phones, washing machines, boilers.
So your belief that "car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose" is based on a flawed and false premise.
Paying insurance and maintenance costs has nothing to do with a right to drive. We pay insurance for own financial protection in case we hurt ourselves, others or our vehicles. It's not a penalty, it's for our own good. Maintenance is expensive but a mechanic's hourly rate has no relation to any right to drive. Parts for any machine are expensive, computers, phones, washing machines, boilers. So your belief that "car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose" is based on a flawed and false premise. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -1

2:26pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

I totally agree with the writer.costs are rising to run a car so people want to get use out of it.the government wants it both ways taxing the vehicle users and charging for high prices for public transport.so they have best of both worlds.public transport doesn't always run late enough to suit some people's shift hours.
I totally agree with the writer.costs are rising to run a car so people want to get use out of it.the government wants it both ways taxing the vehicle users and charging for high prices for public transport.so they have best of both worlds.public transport doesn't always run late enough to suit some people's shift hours. Parrot king
  • Score: -23

5:23pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

If we all got thousands of pounds of expenses as well as our wages.we could afford a car that we keep in the garage.and use public transport.we could also afford a second electric Gimmick car !!!!!!!
If we all got thousands of pounds of expenses as well as our wages.we could afford a car that we keep in the garage.and use public transport.we could also afford a second electric Gimmick car !!!!!!! Parrot king
  • Score: -22

8:44pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!!
I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!! Igiveinthen
  • Score: -15

10:13pm Sat 8 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

Mr Bowes wrote "I believe car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose."

Problem is that when thousands more take the same attitude and take to the streets at the same time, they overburden the road network's capacity. Try looking beyond many of our lifetimes to a future York where buildings burn down because Fire Engines can't reach them, ambulances cannot reach the sick, buses are trapped and blue badge holders can't get their cars out of their driveways.
But never mind. PP junior and his future family will be whizzing past it all.......
Mr Bowes wrote "I believe car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose." Problem is that when thousands more take the same attitude and take to the streets at the same time, they overburden the road network's capacity. Try looking beyond many of our lifetimes to a future York where buildings burn down because Fire Engines can't reach them, ambulances cannot reach the sick, buses are trapped and blue badge holders can't get their cars out of their driveways. But never mind. PP junior and his future family will be whizzing past it all....... pedalling paul
  • Score: 12

10:16pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!!
Is this a positive for motorist or a negative.please explain.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!![/p][/quote]Is this a positive for motorist or a negative.please explain. Parrot king
  • Score: -33

10:21pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

The government love the revenue they get from motorists.so vehicles will never be reduced
The government love the revenue they get from motorists.so vehicles will never be reduced Parrot king
  • Score: -25

10:41pm Sat 8 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Paying insurance and maintenance costs has nothing to do with a right to drive.
We pay insurance for own financial protection in case we hurt ourselves, others or our vehicles. It's not a penalty, it's for our own good.
Maintenance is expensive but a mechanic's hourly rate has no relation to any right to drive. Parts for any machine are expensive, computers, phones, washing machines, boilers.
So your belief that "car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose" is based on a flawed and false premise.
Spot on. Never ceases to amaze me that people trot out that old cliché.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Paying insurance and maintenance costs has nothing to do with a right to drive. We pay insurance for own financial protection in case we hurt ourselves, others or our vehicles. It's not a penalty, it's for our own good. Maintenance is expensive but a mechanic's hourly rate has no relation to any right to drive. Parts for any machine are expensive, computers, phones, washing machines, boilers. So your belief that "car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose" is based on a flawed and false premise.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Never ceases to amaze me that people trot out that old cliché. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 31

10:42pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Parrot king wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!!
Is this a positive for motorist or a negative.please explain.
It's a negative for motorists, the reason I choose pp as a comparison is that he doesn't do the 'cycling fraternity' any favours as he is so prejudiced against car use that even some cyclists criticise him, so when Mr Bowes writes ------ I believe car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose ------ it just alienates us.
[quote][p][bold]Parrot king[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!![/p][/quote]Is this a positive for motorist or a negative.please explain.[/p][/quote]It's a negative for motorists, the reason I choose pp as a comparison is that he doesn't do the 'cycling fraternity' any favours as he is so prejudiced against car use that even some cyclists criticise him, so when Mr Bowes writes ------ I believe car drivers have paid more than enough to have the right to use their vehicles when and where they choose ------ it just alienates us. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -21

11:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

"COUN Dave Merrett seems intent on trying to cut vehicle traffic congestion in the York city centre"

Well that started badly did it not? York, according to the council has less volume of traffic now than in 2002. Mr Merrett is not trying to cut congestion he is creating congestion by corralling vehicles into ever decreasing spaces where he then uses various weapons at his disposal such as traffic lights to build queues and hence the illusion of increasing volume and the reality of council made congestion and pollution with the few vehicles that remain. It appears that Mr Merrett's hatred of vehicles will make him stop at nothing to rid the city entirely of any vehicle which is not a cycle or a bus as has been the councils vision for some time just look at the pictures adorning York Local Transport Plan 3.

Before anyone says this was signed off by the Lib Dems - I know but just take a look at who has had a steady hand on the tiller of traffic planning regardless of which party is in power.
http://democracy.yor
k.gov.uk/mgAttendanc
e.aspx?XXR=0&DR=14%2
f09%2f2003-09%2f03%2
f2014&ACT=Go&UID=145
"COUN Dave Merrett seems intent on trying to cut vehicle traffic congestion in the York city centre" Well that started badly did it not? York, according to the council has less volume of traffic now than in 2002. Mr Merrett is not trying to cut congestion he is creating congestion by corralling vehicles into ever decreasing spaces where he then uses various weapons at his disposal such as traffic lights to build queues and hence the illusion of increasing volume and the reality of council made congestion and pollution with the few vehicles that remain. It appears that Mr Merrett's hatred of vehicles will make him stop at nothing to rid the city entirely of any vehicle which is not a cycle or a bus as has been the councils vision for some time just look at the pictures adorning York Local Transport Plan 3. Before anyone says this was signed off by the Lib Dems - I know but just take a look at who has had a steady hand on the tiller of traffic planning regardless of which party is in power. http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/mgAttendanc e.aspx?XXR=0&DR=14%2 f09%2f2003-09%2f03%2 f2014&ACT=Go&UID=145 strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -21

12:13am Sun 9 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
"COUN Dave Merrett seems intent on trying to cut vehicle traffic congestion in the York city centre"

Well that started badly did it not? York, according to the council has less volume of traffic now than in 2002. Mr Merrett is not trying to cut congestion he is creating congestion by corralling vehicles into ever decreasing spaces where he then uses various weapons at his disposal such as traffic lights to build queues and hence the illusion of increasing volume and the reality of council made congestion and pollution with the few vehicles that remain. It appears that Mr Merrett's hatred of vehicles will make him stop at nothing to rid the city entirely of any vehicle which is not a cycle or a bus as has been the councils vision for some time just look at the pictures adorning York Local Transport Plan 3.

Before anyone says this was signed off by the Lib Dems - I know but just take a look at who has had a steady hand on the tiller of traffic planning regardless of which party is in power.
http://democracy.yor

k.gov.uk/mgAttendanc

e.aspx?XXR=0&DR=
14%2
f09%2f2003-09%2f03%2

f2014&ACT=Go&amp
;UID=145
It's the one and only MMMMMMMMMrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrr Dave Merrett folks.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: "COUN Dave Merrett seems intent on trying to cut vehicle traffic congestion in the York city centre" Well that started badly did it not? York, according to the council has less volume of traffic now than in 2002. Mr Merrett is not trying to cut congestion he is creating congestion by corralling vehicles into ever decreasing spaces where he then uses various weapons at his disposal such as traffic lights to build queues and hence the illusion of increasing volume and the reality of council made congestion and pollution with the few vehicles that remain. It appears that Mr Merrett's hatred of vehicles will make him stop at nothing to rid the city entirely of any vehicle which is not a cycle or a bus as has been the councils vision for some time just look at the pictures adorning York Local Transport Plan 3. Before anyone says this was signed off by the Lib Dems - I know but just take a look at who has had a steady hand on the tiller of traffic planning regardless of which party is in power. http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/mgAttendanc e.aspx?XXR=0&DR= 14%2 f09%2f2003-09%2f03%2 f2014&ACT=Go& ;UID=145[/p][/quote]It's the one and only MMMMMMMMMrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr Dave Merrett folks. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -20

4:22am Sun 9 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!!
Exactly. All these "I pay taxes and insurance blah blah blah, therefore I should be able to drive where and when I want to without any restrictions" does nothing for any side of the discussion. It just appears as childish.

If every single person in this city decided to get in their cars for every single journey they made, the city would come to a grinding halt and then nobody would be getting anywhere.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!![/p][/quote]Exactly. All these "I pay taxes and insurance blah blah blah, therefore I should be able to drive where and when I want to without any restrictions" does nothing for any side of the discussion. It just appears as childish. If every single person in this city decided to get in their cars for every single journey they made, the city would come to a grinding halt and then nobody would be getting anywhere. Magicman!
  • Score: 28

8:45am Sun 9 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Magicman! wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!!
Exactly. All these "I pay taxes and insurance blah blah blah, therefore I should be able to drive where and when I want to without any restrictions" does nothing for any side of the discussion. It just appears as childish.

If every single person in this city decided to get in their cars for every single journey they made, the city would come to a grinding halt and then nobody would be getting anywhere.
Spot on. We (and I include me in this) do pay a lot for car ownership, but that is our choice. Nobody forced us to own a car, there are alternatives to using it for every bloomin' journey. I use other forms of transport quite a lot - the train is so easy, buses at least save on parking, cycle occasionally (hate cycling but not cyclists!) and walk a hell of a lot.
Am not suggesting everyone has to be like me (heaven forbid!) but if you jump in the car for all your journeys, then do not moan too much if those who do the same gridlock you. You pay taxes for a privilege not a divine right.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: I am a motorist, I enjoy driving my car, it is my first choice of transport, but Mr Bowes has just done for motorists what PeddallingPaul has done for the cycling fraternity!!!!![/p][/quote]Exactly. All these "I pay taxes and insurance blah blah blah, therefore I should be able to drive where and when I want to without any restrictions" does nothing for any side of the discussion. It just appears as childish. If every single person in this city decided to get in their cars for every single journey they made, the city would come to a grinding halt and then nobody would be getting anywhere.[/p][/quote]Spot on. We (and I include me in this) do pay a lot for car ownership, but that is our choice. Nobody forced us to own a car, there are alternatives to using it for every bloomin' journey. I use other forms of transport quite a lot - the train is so easy, buses at least save on parking, cycle occasionally (hate cycling but not cyclists!) and walk a hell of a lot. Am not suggesting everyone has to be like me (heaven forbid!) but if you jump in the car for all your journeys, then do not moan too much if those who do the same gridlock you. You pay taxes for a privilege not a divine right. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 28

3:41pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.
You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste. Parrot king
  • Score: -2

6:07pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Parrot king wrote:
You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.
So your saying, if I am interpretating it correctly, just because you own a car, and you have to pay to tax, insure, fuel and maintain it etc. that you have to use it for every single journey you make, or your not getting value for your financial outlay?
[quote][p][bold]Parrot king[/bold] wrote: You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.[/p][/quote]So your saying, if I am interpretating it correctly, just because you own a car, and you have to pay to tax, insure, fuel and maintain it etc. that you have to use it for every single journey you make, or your not getting value for your financial outlay? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -1

6:12pm Sun 9 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves.

I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.
The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves. I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 11

8:21pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Jonthan says...

Parrot king wrote:
The government love the revenue they get from motorists.so vehicles will never be reduced
This is what they used to say about smoking
[quote][p][bold]Parrot king[/bold] wrote: The government love the revenue they get from motorists.so vehicles will never be reduced[/p][/quote]This is what they used to say about smoking Jonthan
  • Score: -9

8:37pm Sun 9 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Parrot king wrote:
You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.
So your saying, if I am interpretating it correctly, just because you own a car, and you have to pay to tax, insure, fuel and maintain it etc. that you have to use it for every single journey you make, or your not getting value for your financial outlay?
Thanks for saving me the bother. Idiot swatting is so tiresome.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrot king[/bold] wrote: You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.[/p][/quote]So your saying, if I am interpretating it correctly, just because you own a car, and you have to pay to tax, insure, fuel and maintain it etc. that you have to use it for every single journey you make, or your not getting value for your financial outlay?[/p][/quote]Thanks for saving me the bother. Idiot swatting is so tiresome. CaroleBaines
  • Score: -4

9:38pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Parrot king wrote:
You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.
So your saying, if I am interpretating it correctly, just because you own a car, and you have to pay to tax, insure, fuel and maintain it etc. that you have to use it for every single journey you make, or your not getting value for your financial outlay?
Thanks for saving me the bother. Idiot swatting is so tiresome.
Agreed
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrot king[/bold] wrote: You sound like you like paying for car taxes insurance and car costs.only to use other modes of transport thus paying twice.must be nice having the money to waste.[/p][/quote]So your saying, if I am interpretating it correctly, just because you own a car, and you have to pay to tax, insure, fuel and maintain it etc. that you have to use it for every single journey you make, or your not getting value for your financial outlay?[/p][/quote]Thanks for saving me the bother. Idiot swatting is so tiresome.[/p][/quote]Agreed Igiveinthen
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

No I respect everybody has the right to their views.and no harm is intended with any comments made.it certainly makes an interesting discussion.
Thanks for all your input and views.
No I respect everybody has the right to their views.and no harm is intended with any comments made.it certainly makes an interesting discussion. Thanks for all your input and views. Parrot king
  • Score: 4

10:37pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Parrot king says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves. I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.
I have noticed this happening aswell.why is the individual rigging the score adjuster.the comments went from +29 to -28 in 3mins.the press needs to look into the culprit.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves. I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.[/p][/quote]I have noticed this happening aswell.why is the individual rigging the score adjuster.the comments went from +29 to -28 in 3mins.the press needs to look into the culprit. Parrot king
  • Score: 9

9:26am Mon 10 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.
The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock. pedalling paul
  • Score: 4

9:49am Mon 10 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.
Thats ok for local journeys within the city, i will agree on that point, but what York needs is a better outer ring road system to cope with 21st century demands, with all due respect pp we don't live in the 19th century as you appear to do.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Thats ok for local journeys within the city, i will agree on that point, but what York needs is a better outer ring road system to cope with 21st century demands, with all due respect pp we don't live in the 19th century as you appear to do. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -2

10:00am Mon 10 Mar 14

sheps lad says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.
Possible future gridlock?Up to now you have claimed gridlock WILL happen.Are you now moderating your views?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Possible future gridlock?Up to now you have claimed gridlock WILL happen.Are you now moderating your views? sheps lad
  • Score: -3

12:48am Tue 11 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves.

I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.
You're like a jukebox in an old bar that only has one record in it... some 'song' by Justin Bieber.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves. I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.[/p][/quote]You're like a jukebox in an old bar that only has one record in it... some 'song' by Justin Bieber. Magicman!
  • Score: -4

12:56am Tue 11 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.
Thats ok for local journeys within the city, i will agree on that point, but what York needs is a better outer ring road system to cope with 21st century demands, with all due respect pp we don't live in the 19th century as you appear to do.
This is true. Get the A1237 dualled with grade seperated junctions, and that will take a significant amount of traffic OUT of the city centre - making it a much better place to walk or cycle as well as improving journey times for buses, which might mean some services can go a bit further (such as the Elvington or Holme on Spalding Moor bus going to the rail station, because there'd be less traffic to slow it down. currently that isn't possible.)

As an example I've used before, travelling from Monks Cross to Clifton Park Drive takes about 20-25 minutes cycling and doesn't really vary unless there's galeforce headwinds or complete gridlock in Bur Dyke caused by inconsiderate parking which clogs the road so the bus can't get through - but even than the max journey time by bike is 30 minutes. Going by car at anytime between 11am-2pm takes 10-15 minutes... so if you make that journey at that time of day then driving is the obvious choice. But try the journey at anytime between 7.30am-10am or 3pm-6pm and by road it will take 40 minutes or more in a car, compared with no more than 30 minutes by bicycle (but usually 20 mins, so half the time) - and suddenly driving doesn't seem as appealing
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The secret is to be selecctive in one's travel choices, and not instinctively jump into the car for every jouney. Park & Ride, car sharing, cycling and walking are all viable for many local journeys. Intelligent travel choices willn contribute significantly to York's battle against possible future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Thats ok for local journeys within the city, i will agree on that point, but what York needs is a better outer ring road system to cope with 21st century demands, with all due respect pp we don't live in the 19th century as you appear to do.[/p][/quote]This is true. Get the A1237 dualled with grade seperated junctions, and that will take a significant amount of traffic OUT of the city centre - making it a much better place to walk or cycle as well as improving journey times for buses, which might mean some services can go a bit further (such as the Elvington or Holme on Spalding Moor bus going to the rail station, because there'd be less traffic to slow it down. currently that isn't possible.) As an example I've used before, travelling from Monks Cross to Clifton Park Drive takes about 20-25 minutes cycling and doesn't really vary unless there's galeforce headwinds or complete gridlock in Bur Dyke caused by inconsiderate parking which clogs the road so the bus can't get through - but even than the max journey time by bike is 30 minutes. Going by car at anytime between 11am-2pm takes 10-15 minutes... so if you make that journey at that time of day then driving is the obvious choice. But try the journey at anytime between 7.30am-10am or 3pm-6pm and by road it will take 40 minutes or more in a car, compared with no more than 30 minutes by bicycle (but usually 20 mins, so half the time) - and suddenly driving doesn't seem as appealing Magicman!
  • Score: -2

5:02pm Wed 12 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Magicman! wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves.

I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.
You're like a jukebox in an old bar that only has one record in it... some 'song' by Justin Bieber.
That I may be but I won't just sit here and let people be mislead by the minority in favour of this closure. Not talking about the score changing and other organisations deliberately hiding or misleading people plays into the hands of those who support the closure.

And here is another repeat. Name calling and put downs are always the first resort of the monitory campaigner where no valid argument exists for their beliefs but hope their disparaging comments will dissuade people with a different view from expressing it. Well as you can see it won't stop me.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: The persistence of the score adjuster is amazing. All scores the opposite way to that which they were before the adjuster steps up. Got to ask - can this be the work of a private individual? Seems less so each day although we do know that it is not individual votes as all the scores change within minutes albeit that it is a little more subtle now which makes it even more misleading. Still it does make the point that supporters can't win the argument for the bridge closure by being honest. It seems closure supporters are happy to mislead by falsifying data so I suppose we can expect more of this in the coming weeks as we have already seen a fair bit of misleading from the council themselves. I will look forward to some more misleading data claiming footfall has increased, business is booming, pollution is down, journey times for all are shorter, buses are running on time and 80% support the closure and are selling their cars. Oh and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs really do fly.[/p][/quote]You're like a jukebox in an old bar that only has one record in it... some 'song' by Justin Bieber.[/p][/quote]That I may be but I won't just sit here and let people be mislead by the minority in favour of this closure. Not talking about the score changing and other organisations deliberately hiding or misleading people plays into the hands of those who support the closure. And here is another repeat. Name calling and put downs are always the first resort of the monitory campaigner where no valid argument exists for their beliefs but hope their disparaging comments will dissuade people with a different view from expressing it. Well as you can see it won't stop me. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 7

2:14pm Thu 13 Mar 14

jay, york says...

It wont sop me either Very well said - you are absolutely spot on on with everything you say!!!

That person is clearly in the minoity and shows no intelligence - and proves it every time by the rude and ignorants posts made.

The council do not want to listen to anyone who is against the closure of Lendal Bridge. Now the "vote rigger" is trying to quieten us. You dont suppose there could be any connection between the two do you???? (only asking)

Come on York Press - do a bit of investigating and stop the vote rigger now!
It wont sop me either Very well said - you are absolutely spot on on with everything you say!!! That person is clearly in the minoity and shows no intelligence - and proves it every time by the rude and ignorants posts made. The council do not want to listen to anyone who is against the closure of Lendal Bridge. Now the "vote rigger" is trying to quieten us. You dont suppose there could be any connection between the two do you???? (only asking) Come on York Press - do a bit of investigating and stop the vote rigger now! jay, york
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree