Fears traffic ban could be bad for disabled parkers

Cars parked in Davygate, York

Cars parked in Davygate, York

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

DISABLED residents face parking problems under plans to make city-centre streets in York car-free zones for longer, opposition councillors have claimed.

City of York Council last week agreed a trial which will standardise the hours when York’s footstreet rules operate – giving pedestrians priority and restricting vehicles.

They will apply between 10.30am and 5pm every day, meaning they will be in force for ten-and-a-half extra hours a week.

Traffic will also be banned from Davygate for most of the day.

However, Liberal Democrat councillors Keith Aspden and Nigel Ayre, together with independent councillor Lynn Jeffries – also an equality campaigner – have “called in” the decision by Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, for more scrutiny.

They said 1,500 severely disabled York residents who have “green” permits will no longer be allowed to enter Davygate, St Sampson’s Square and Church Street and park for up to three hours, and the number of potential city-centre parking spaces they can use will be cut by a third.

The councillors want a further review of the Labour-run authority’s changes, saying there was little or no sign that permit-holders had been consulted and equalities issues had not been properly analysed.

“I agree with a lot of the footstreets review, but the proposals to cut parking for disabled residents seem to have been very poorly prepared,” said Coun Ayre, the Lib Dems’ equalities spokesman.

“The call-in should ensure the policy is properly analysed and Labour is forced to either provide evidence of any consultation or commit to consulting before the changes are implemented.

“It is the minimum which should be expected for a decision which will impact upon some of the most vulnerable residents in our community.”

Coun Merrett said the necessary assessments and consultations had been carried out.

He said: “Green permit holders will continue to enjoy access to St Sampson’s Square and Church Street, via Goodramgate.

“With the proposed change reducing other illegal access into Davygate, green badge holders should have a much better chance of being able to park centrally.

“The maximum distance to any part of the footstreets from any green or blue badge parking or from outside the footstreets will be unaffected, and any permanent proposal to alter arrangements for badge-holders will be subject to a full impact assessment and consultation before any decision is taken.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:39am Tue 27 Nov 12

roskoboskovic says...

having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.
having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 1

10:26am Tue 27 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.
In this case though, I think Merrett is doing the right thing. As mentioned, disabled can still get to Church Street etc via Goodramgate, they just won't be able to use Davygate as a through route to avoid using the inner ring road as they do now. I'm 100% in favour of the changes. And once again, i think opposition Cllrs are opposing for the sheer sake of it. I'm not entirely sure what their case against this change is?
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.[/p][/quote]In this case though, I think Merrett is doing the right thing. As mentioned, disabled can still get to Church Street etc via Goodramgate, they just won't be able to use Davygate as a through route to avoid using the inner ring road as they do now. I'm 100% in favour of the changes. And once again, i think opposition Cllrs are opposing for the sheer sake of it. I'm not entirely sure what their case against this change is? Von_Dutch
  • Score: 1

11:08am Tue 27 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
roskoboskovic wrote:
having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.
In this case though, I think Merrett is doing the right thing. As mentioned, disabled can still get to Church Street etc via Goodramgate, they just won't be able to use Davygate as a through route to avoid using the inner ring road as they do now. I'm 100% in favour of the changes. And once again, i think opposition Cllrs are opposing for the sheer sake of it. I'm not entirely sure what their case against this change is?
Just look at the recent letters to the Press. This will have lasting impact on disabled and elderly residents and Mr Merrit has given it no consideration whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.[/p][/quote]In this case though, I think Merrett is doing the right thing. As mentioned, disabled can still get to Church Street etc via Goodramgate, they just won't be able to use Davygate as a through route to avoid using the inner ring road as they do now. I'm 100% in favour of the changes. And once again, i think opposition Cllrs are opposing for the sheer sake of it. I'm not entirely sure what their case against this change is?[/p][/quote]Just look at the recent letters to the Press. This will have lasting impact on disabled and elderly residents and Mr Merrit has given it no consideration whatsoever. atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 1

11:31am Tue 27 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
roskoboskovic wrote: having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.
In this case though, I think Merrett is doing the right thing. As mentioned, disabled can still get to Church Street etc via Goodramgate, they just won't be able to use Davygate as a through route to avoid using the inner ring road as they do now. I'm 100% in favour of the changes. And once again, i think opposition Cllrs are opposing for the sheer sake of it. I'm not entirely sure what their case against this change is?
Just look at the recent letters to the Press. This will have lasting impact on disabled and elderly residents and Mr Merrit has given it no consideration whatsoever.
I really do struggle to understand how and why you think this will have a lasting impact on disabled and elderly? With a blue or a green badge, they can still get to park outside whatever shops they like, free of charge. All they won't be able to do is use Davygate as a through-route. And for good reason too.
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.[/p][/quote]In this case though, I think Merrett is doing the right thing. As mentioned, disabled can still get to Church Street etc via Goodramgate, they just won't be able to use Davygate as a through route to avoid using the inner ring road as they do now. I'm 100% in favour of the changes. And once again, i think opposition Cllrs are opposing for the sheer sake of it. I'm not entirely sure what their case against this change is?[/p][/quote]Just look at the recent letters to the Press. This will have lasting impact on disabled and elderly residents and Mr Merrit has given it no consideration whatsoever.[/p][/quote]I really do struggle to understand how and why you think this will have a lasting impact on disabled and elderly? With a blue or a green badge, they can still get to park outside whatever shops they like, free of charge. All they won't be able to do is use Davygate as a through-route. And for good reason too. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

11:53am Tue 27 Nov 12

hifive says...

For once I agree with this decision. Disabled people will just have to ammend their route - hardly the end of the world considering that they can get a lot more central than they can in some other areas. This shouldn't be too hard to implement and it is necessary when one looks at the reasons behind it.
For once I agree with this decision. Disabled people will just have to ammend their route - hardly the end of the world considering that they can get a lot more central than they can in some other areas. This shouldn't be too hard to implement and it is necessary when one looks at the reasons behind it. hifive
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 27 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/features/read
ersletters/10060373.
Parking_blues/
http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/features/read ersletters/10060373. Parking_blues/ atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Tue 27 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/features/read
ersletters/10058349.
Don___t_forget_healt
h_problems/
http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/features/read ersletters/10058349. Don___t_forget_healt h_problems/ atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Tue 27 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

And here's what Labour had to say on the matter while in opposition!

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/8855654.
Scheme_to_scrap_disa
bled_parking_spaces_
attacked/?action=com
plain&cid=9155575

Double hypocrisy from Red Sonja who is a) silent on the issue b) quietly not mentioning the following quote in this article " She said Labour’s alternative council budget would call for the plan to be scrapped."
And here's what Labour had to say on the matter while in opposition! http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/8855654. Scheme_to_scrap_disa bled_parking_spaces_ attacked/?action=com plain&cid=9155575 Double hypocrisy from Red Sonja who is a) silent on the issue b) quietly not mentioning the following quote in this article " She said Labour’s alternative council budget would call for the plan to be scrapped." atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Tue 27 Nov 12

bloodaxe says...

It is surely not beyond wit and imagination to provide for disabled access while restricting through traffic and stopping people who just can't be bothered to walk. As for disabled drivers and passengers, there surely has to a point at which they have to leave their cars ? After all, you can't drive absolutely everywhere, disabled or not. Why not have two days a week with absolutely no car access ? It works in many European cities.
It is surely not beyond wit and imagination to provide for disabled access while restricting through traffic and stopping people who just can't be bothered to walk. As for disabled drivers and passengers, there surely has to a point at which they have to leave their cars ? After all, you can't drive absolutely everywhere, disabled or not. Why not have two days a week with absolutely no car access ? It works in many European cities. bloodaxe
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 27 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre.

I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.[/p][/quote]Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Buzz Light-year says...

There is nothing more laughable on this site than people accusing others of being councillors because they disagree with what they post.

Apart from maybe calling Sonja Crisp "Red Sonja" as an insult. She's a Labour councillor. She is committed to Labour. Does it not strike anyone that she might like being called "Red"?

Von_Dutch's posts historically are nowhere near as political as those made by someone calling themself "atorycouncil2014"

BTW Von_Dutch is right about the Usherwood letter. Serial complainer, Meldrew wannabe, if the council introduced Swedish virgins ushering blue badge holders to their parking spots and holding their hands to the shops it wouldn't be enough.

Just some observations...
There is nothing more laughable on this site than people accusing others of being councillors because they disagree with what they post. Apart from maybe calling Sonja Crisp "Red Sonja" as an insult. She's a Labour councillor. She is committed to Labour. Does it not strike anyone that she might like being called "Red"? Von_Dutch's posts historically are nowhere near as political as those made by someone calling themself "atorycouncil2014" BTW Von_Dutch is right about the Usherwood letter. Serial complainer, Meldrew wannabe, if the council introduced Swedish virgins ushering blue badge holders to their parking spots and holding their hands to the shops it wouldn't be enough. Just some observations... Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Tue 27 Nov 12

piaggio1 says...

who cares/bothered??, see em down goodramgate, fit as a fiddle most of em ,an the fiddle is what most of em are on ,get real..............??
??
bring on the comments from all the do gooders
who cares/bothered??, see em down goodramgate, fit as a fiddle most of em ,an the fiddle is what most of em are on ,get real..............?? ?? bring on the comments from all the do gooders piaggio1
  • Score: -1

12:12am Wed 28 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre.

I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report
Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.[/p][/quote]Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report[/p][/quote]Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

3:41am Wed 28 Nov 12

Magicman! says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.
That would be why they spent £12k to remove the cycle lane at Clifton green then... only to also alter the traffic light timings because they knew removing the cycle lane wouldn't make any different but they did it anyway. Yes, yes our council does absolutely everything pro-cycling and anti-motoring.

Yeah right!!
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: having merrett in charge of transport in york is a joke.the bloke hates motorists and will go blindly ahead with any pro cyclist/pedestrian scheme regardless of the effect on access or traffic flow in the city.[/p][/quote]That would be why they spent £12k to remove the cycle lane at Clifton green then... only to also alter the traffic light timings because they knew removing the cycle lane wouldn't make any different but they did it anyway. Yes, yes our council does absolutely everything pro-cycling and anti-motoring. Yeah right!! Magicman!
  • Score: 0

3:53am Wed 28 Nov 12

Magicman! says...

bloodaxe wrote:
It is surely not beyond wit and imagination to provide for disabled access while restricting through traffic and stopping people who just can't be bothered to walk. As for disabled drivers and passengers, there surely has to a point at which they have to leave their cars ? After all, you can't drive absolutely everywhere, disabled or not. Why not have two days a week with absolutely no car access ? It works in many European cities.
Might be a good idea.

As a responsible cyclist, I have to divert around the city centre everytime I want to go from Monkgate to Piccadilly/Ousegate or vice versa.... and so blocking off the city centre for use as a through-route for those with badges is a good idea.

I would also like to see mechanical enforcement to prevent unauthorised vehicles entering the pedestrian "no car" area, and surely it's not too hard to do. All you need is a camera or something with optical character recognition which can read the green disabled pass, and then lowers a rising bollard so the severley disabled person has access - with the bollard going back up after the car has passed. You could even then run a timecheck system to compare how long it takes between that vehicle entering and leaving the area (using ANPR) to ensure the car is actually parking and not just cutting through the centre. green pass to enter, green pass to leave - that would also prevent non-disabled persons from simply dropping off a disabled person within the area.
Other authorised vehicles like council vans, amey vans, and dial & ride would have either transponders fitted or their own pass card to wave in front of the sensor for access.

simple LED or variable message signs would show when it was a "no car day" in the centre, and would also provide a "no tailgating" warning, which seems to be compulsory anywhere that a rising bollard is installed due to the number of drivers who think they have the right to be within the restricted area. Though I fear any signs like this would get the "no sign clutter" maffia up in arms and wagging fingers as they walk around looking at what other signs and lamp posts they can get removed just because they obstruct the view of some old stone.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: It is surely not beyond wit and imagination to provide for disabled access while restricting through traffic and stopping people who just can't be bothered to walk. As for disabled drivers and passengers, there surely has to a point at which they have to leave their cars ? After all, you can't drive absolutely everywhere, disabled or not. Why not have two days a week with absolutely no car access ? It works in many European cities.[/p][/quote]Might be a good idea. As a responsible cyclist, I have to divert around the city centre everytime I want to go from Monkgate to Piccadilly/Ousegate or vice versa.... and so blocking off the city centre for use as a through-route for those with badges is a good idea. I would also like to see mechanical enforcement to prevent unauthorised vehicles entering the pedestrian "no car" area, and surely it's not too hard to do. All you need is a camera or something with optical character recognition which can read the green disabled pass, and then lowers a rising bollard so the severley disabled person has access - with the bollard going back up after the car has passed. You could even then run a timecheck system to compare how long it takes between that vehicle entering and leaving the area (using ANPR) to ensure the car is actually parking and not just cutting through the centre. green pass to enter, green pass to leave - that would also prevent non-disabled persons from simply dropping off a disabled person within the area. Other authorised vehicles like council vans, amey vans, and dial & ride would have either transponders fitted or their own pass card to wave in front of the sensor for access. simple LED or variable message signs would show when it was a "no car day" in the centre, and would also provide a "no tailgating" warning, which seems to be compulsory anywhere that a rising bollard is installed due to the number of drivers who think they have the right to be within the restricted area. Though I fear any signs like this would get the "no sign clutter" maffia up in arms and wagging fingers as they walk around looking at what other signs and lamp posts they can get removed just because they obstruct the view of some old stone. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

10:10am Wed 28 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre.

I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report
Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.
sorry what mistruths are you accusing me of. heres a quote from the actual report

"Around 2/3 of the existing parking
potential would be retained for use by disabled drivers"

It was a scandal when the last lot attacked disabled parking and this is even worse.

Roll on the next election
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.[/p][/quote]Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report[/p][/quote]Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.[/p][/quote]sorry what mistruths are you accusing me of. heres a quote from the actual report "Around 2/3 of the existing parking potential would be retained for use by disabled drivers" It was a scandal when the last lot attacked disabled parking and this is even worse. Roll on the next election atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

10:43am Wed 28 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

The mistruths are merely that you try to assert your point using a couple of ill-informed mistaken letters as evidence. Plus the fact that you believe i'm a Labour Councillor! Haha. (Trust me, completely wide of the mark there...)
The mistruths are merely that you try to assert your point using a couple of ill-informed mistaken letters as evidence. Plus the fact that you believe i'm a Labour Councillor! Haha. (Trust me, completely wide of the mark there...) Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

10:50am Wed 28 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

Plus, this is not an 'attack' on the disabled. It's merely a sensible proposal to improve the city centre and reduce the conflict between drivers and pedestrians, which in the real world has minimal impact on the disabled. (Why do people always think changes are an 'attack' on them?!?)

Should a few disabled drivers be given carte blanche over where they can drive in York? Will one small daytime restriction of not being able to drive from St Helens Square to St Sampsons Square be such a big deal for the genuine disabled just wanting to park close to the shops they're accessing? I think not.
Plus, this is not an 'attack' on the disabled. It's merely a sensible proposal to improve the city centre and reduce the conflict between drivers and pedestrians, which in the real world has minimal impact on the disabled. (Why do people always think changes are an 'attack' on them?!?) Should a few disabled drivers be given carte blanche over where they can drive in York? Will one small daytime restriction of not being able to drive from St Helens Square to St Sampsons Square be such a big deal for the genuine disabled just wanting to park close to the shops they're accessing? I think not. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Wed 28 Nov 12

atorycouncil2014 says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
The mistruths are merely that you try to assert your point using a couple of ill-informed mistaken letters as evidence. Plus the fact that you believe i'm a Labour Councillor! Haha. (Trust me, completely wide of the mark there...)
The fact that I use the evidence of two people who actually use blue badges rather than the opinions of council staff and Mr Merrit?
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: The mistruths are merely that you try to assert your point using a couple of ill-informed mistaken letters as evidence. Plus the fact that you believe i'm a Labour Councillor! Haha. (Trust me, completely wide of the mark there...)[/p][/quote]The fact that I use the evidence of two people who actually use blue badges rather than the opinions of council staff and Mr Merrit? atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 1

2:32pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

*Bangs head against wall*
Yes they may well have blue badges, but they were mistaken/ignorant in their understanding of the proposal. Therefore their opinion - on something which isn't happening - is completely irrelevant.
*Bangs head against wall* Yes they may well have blue badges, but they were mistaken/ignorant in their understanding of the proposal. Therefore their opinion - on something which isn't happening - is completely irrelevant. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Wed 28 Nov 12

m dee says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre.

I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report
Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.
I think you should check your FACTS again .Davygate will no longer be a parking option for 1,500 York residents who have a Green badge issued to severely disabled who find it extremely difficult to transfer from car to wheelchair,as many of the other streets have high kerbs.
You are wrongly assuming Davygate is not used for disabled parking please look at the picture with the above article.
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.[/p][/quote]Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report[/p][/quote]Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.[/p][/quote]I think you should check your FACTS again .Davygate will no longer be a parking option for 1,500 York residents who have a Green badge issued to severely disabled who find it extremely difficult to transfer from car to wheelchair,as many of the other streets have high kerbs. You are wrongly assuming Davygate is not used for disabled parking please look at the picture with the above article. m dee
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
*Bangs head against wall* Yes they may well have blue badges, but they were mistaken/ignorant in their understanding of the proposal. Therefore their opinion - on something which isn't happening - is completely irrelevant.
Yes.
One of those letter writers, Mr Usherwood is the epitome of biased misinformed unsupported moaning.
Nothing he says can be regarded as fact.
The Press is archived. Search yourselves and see the lies he has moaned over the years.

Anecdotal isn't empirical.
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: *Bangs head against wall* Yes they may well have blue badges, but they were mistaken/ignorant in their understanding of the proposal. Therefore their opinion - on something which isn't happening - is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Yes. One of those letter writers, Mr Usherwood is the epitome of biased misinformed unsupported moaning. Nothing he says can be regarded as fact. The Press is archived. Search yourselves and see the lies he has moaned over the years. Anecdotal isn't empirical. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Buzz Light-year says...

m dee wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report
Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.
I think you should check your FACTS again .Davygate will no longer be a parking option for 1,500 York residents who have a Green badge issued to severely disabled who find it extremely difficult to transfer from car to wheelchair,as many of the other streets have high kerbs. You are wrongly assuming Davygate is not used for disabled parking please look at the picture with the above article.
Yes look at the picture with the above article.
It shows cars parked in St Sampson's Square.
You don't need to drive down Davygate to park where those cars are parked.


Anyway, don't those cars show a good example of a pedestrianised area?
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.[/p][/quote]Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report[/p][/quote]Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.[/p][/quote]I think you should check your FACTS again .Davygate will no longer be a parking option for 1,500 York residents who have a Green badge issued to severely disabled who find it extremely difficult to transfer from car to wheelchair,as many of the other streets have high kerbs. You are wrongly assuming Davygate is not used for disabled parking please look at the picture with the above article.[/p][/quote]Yes look at the picture with the above article. It shows cars parked in St Sampson's Square. You don't need to drive down Davygate to park where those cars are parked. Anyway, don't those cars show a good example of a pedestrianised area? Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

12:10am Thu 29 Nov 12

Von_Dutch says...

M Dee, i'm perfectly aware that Davygate is currently used for parking by the disabled. Personally i don't think it should be as it makes a mockery of the whole pedestrianisation ethos in this particular area, but that's just my own opinion. If they want to access shops etc on Coney Street or High Ousegate, they can't park immediately outside it, so i don't see this as any different. It's a very short distance from Blake Street or St Sampsons Square to anywhere on Davygate. As much as i'm sympathetic about their needs, there are plenty of other places for the disabled to park and their needs/wants shouldn't outweigh everyone elses.
M Dee, i'm perfectly aware that Davygate is currently used for parking by the disabled. Personally i don't think it should be as it makes a mockery of the whole pedestrianisation ethos in this particular area, but that's just my own opinion. If they want to access shops etc on Coney Street or High Ousegate, they can't park immediately outside it, so i don't see this as any different. It's a very short distance from Blake Street or St Sampsons Square to anywhere on Davygate. As much as i'm sympathetic about their needs, there are plenty of other places for the disabled to park and their needs/wants shouldn't outweigh everyone elses. Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Thu 29 Nov 12

m dee says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
m dee wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.
Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report
Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.
I think you should check your FACTS again .Davygate will no longer be a parking option for 1,500 York residents who have a Green badge issued to severely disabled who find it extremely difficult to transfer from car to wheelchair,as many of the other streets have high kerbs. You are wrongly assuming Davygate is not used for disabled parking please look at the picture with the above article.
Yes look at the picture with the above article.
It shows cars parked in St Sampson's Square.
You don't need to drive down Davygate to park where those cars are parked.


Anyway, don't those cars show a good example of a pedestrianised area?
Buzz look again your sat nav must be out of whack,the cars in the picture are on Davygate another clue is in the caption underneath which say "cars parked on Davygate."
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Your first letter was from prolific complainer Mike Usherwood - who merely uses the article as an excuse to whinge about errant cyclists. The responses to his letter correct his (and the second letter writer's) misbelief that disabled will not be allowed to park in the centre except outside footstreets hours. This is not true. Disabled will be able to continue to do as they have always done, as the footstreets hours exempt the disabled. The only alteration is the entension of the hours for general traffic, plus no through-route on Davygate. So these arguments you evidence from letter-writers have been proven false.[/p][/quote]Well Councillor, why don't you ask your colleague. Red Sonja. If losing one space outside the library was catastrophic how bad is losing ONE THIRD in total in the city centre. I hope your not on any committee that will decide this as your struggling to understand the report[/p][/quote]Haha, Councillor i certainly aint. Just a local York resident who INFORMS himself of the FACTS instead of ignorantly coming on here making mistruths.[/p][/quote]I think you should check your FACTS again .Davygate will no longer be a parking option for 1,500 York residents who have a Green badge issued to severely disabled who find it extremely difficult to transfer from car to wheelchair,as many of the other streets have high kerbs. You are wrongly assuming Davygate is not used for disabled parking please look at the picture with the above article.[/p][/quote]Yes look at the picture with the above article. It shows cars parked in St Sampson's Square. You don't need to drive down Davygate to park where those cars are parked. Anyway, don't those cars show a good example of a pedestrianised area?[/p][/quote]Buzz look again your sat nav must be out of whack,the cars in the picture are on Davygate another clue is in the caption underneath which say "cars parked on Davygate." m dee
  • Score: 1

10:05pm Mon 3 Dec 12

AnarchyUK says...

Look at how many of these "disabled" drivers are REALLY 'disabled'. A lot of them are no more disabled than I am. The scheme is blatantly abused with perfectly healthy lazy scum who get a disabled badge so they can ferry their granny to hospital for an annual check up, then they just use the badge to park their lazy fat arses wherever they like. Disabled? Yeah, right!... Make them PAY to park. They can afford mobiles/scratch cards/lottery tickets/expensive TV's can they not? Then they can cough up to park like the rest of us and shut their self-serving whinging mouths.
Look at how many of these "disabled" drivers are REALLY 'disabled'. A lot of them are no more disabled than I am. The scheme is blatantly abused with perfectly healthy lazy scum who get a disabled badge so they can ferry their granny to hospital for an annual check up, then they just use the badge to park their lazy fat arses wherever they like. Disabled? Yeah, right!... Make them PAY to park. They can afford mobiles/scratch cards/lottery tickets/expensive TV's can they not? Then they can cough up to park like the rest of us and shut their self-serving whinging mouths. AnarchyUK
  • Score: -1

11:17pm Mon 3 Dec 12

yorkborn66 says...

AnarchyUK wrote:
Look at how many of these "disabled" drivers are REALLY 'disabled'. A lot of them are no more disabled than I am. The scheme is blatantly abused with perfectly healthy lazy scum who get a disabled badge so they can ferry their granny to hospital for an annual check up, then they just use the badge to park their lazy fat arses wherever they like. Disabled? Yeah, right!... Make them PAY to park. They can afford mobiles/scratch cards/lottery tickets/expensive TV's can they not? Then they can cough up to park like the rest of us and shut their self-serving whinging mouths.
Just because you may not see someone with a disabled badge, have missing limbs etc, it does not mean they are not disabled.
The majority of disabled badge holders would wish not to be disabled, given the choice and be as able bodied as possible.
For those who wish to just rant about disabled people, get a life, because that’s what disabled people wish to do without the moaning.
[quote][p][bold]AnarchyUK[/bold] wrote: Look at how many of these "disabled" drivers are REALLY 'disabled'. A lot of them are no more disabled than I am. The scheme is blatantly abused with perfectly healthy lazy scum who get a disabled badge so they can ferry their granny to hospital for an annual check up, then they just use the badge to park their lazy fat arses wherever they like. Disabled? Yeah, right!... Make them PAY to park. They can afford mobiles/scratch cards/lottery tickets/expensive TV's can they not? Then they can cough up to park like the rest of us and shut their self-serving whinging mouths.[/p][/quote]Just because you may not see someone with a disabled badge, have missing limbs etc, it does not mean they are not disabled. The majority of disabled badge holders would wish not to be disabled, given the choice and be as able bodied as possible. For those who wish to just rant about disabled people, get a life, because that’s what disabled people wish to do without the moaning. yorkborn66
  • Score: 1

12:37am Tue 4 Dec 12

akaroa says...

The vehicles that park in the foot street zones using disability permits should be checked on a regular basis, to ensure they are bona fide. The whole of the pedestrianisation of the city center is an utter disgrace, a complete farce.. The regulations are totally ignored by drivers of all manner of prohibited vehicles . It will never change untill the situation is properly monitored, the system is a joke
The vehicles that park in the foot street zones using disability permits should be checked on a regular basis, to ensure they are bona fide. The whole of the pedestrianisation of the city center is an utter disgrace, a complete farce.. The regulations are totally ignored by drivers of all manner of prohibited vehicles . It will never change untill the situation is properly monitored, the system is a joke akaroa
  • Score: -1

12:43am Tue 4 Dec 12

akaroa says...

The vehicles that park in the foot street zones using disability permits should be checked on a regular basis, to ensure they are bona fide. The whole of the pedestrianisation of the city center is an utter disgrace, a complete farce.. The regulations are totally ignored by drivers of all manner of prohibited vehicles . It will never change untill the situation is properly monitored, the system is a joke
The vehicles that park in the foot street zones using disability permits should be checked on a regular basis, to ensure they are bona fide. The whole of the pedestrianisation of the city center is an utter disgrace, a complete farce.. The regulations are totally ignored by drivers of all manner of prohibited vehicles . It will never change untill the situation is properly monitored, the system is a joke akaroa
  • Score: -1

8:37pm Wed 5 Dec 12

AnarchyUK says...

yorkborn66 wrote:
AnarchyUK wrote:
Look at how many of these "disabled" drivers are REALLY 'disabled'. A lot of them are no more disabled than I am. The scheme is blatantly abused with perfectly healthy lazy scum who get a disabled badge so they can ferry their granny to hospital for an annual check up, then they just use the badge to park their lazy fat arses wherever they like. Disabled? Yeah, right!... Make them PAY to park. They can afford mobiles/scratch cards/lottery tickets/expensive TV's can they not? Then they can cough up to park like the rest of us and shut their self-serving whinging mouths.
Just because you may not see someone with a disabled badge, have missing limbs etc, it does not mean they are not disabled.
The majority of disabled badge holders would wish not to be disabled, given the choice and be as able bodied as possible.
For those who wish to just rant about disabled people, get a life, because that’s what disabled people wish to do without the moaning.
Bit like the guy in York tonight who parked on double yellow lines, bringing traffic to a halt, obstructing the flow through the traffic lights at the junction, tossed a "disabled" badge onto his dashboard - then promptly jumped out and RAN across the street to the cashpoint, eh?
But then, maybe he had a 'hidden' disability perhaps? Yeah, that must have been the case... Can't see why I could have been annoyed by him at all, the poor crippled soul...
[quote][p][bold]yorkborn66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnarchyUK[/bold] wrote: Look at how many of these "disabled" drivers are REALLY 'disabled'. A lot of them are no more disabled than I am. The scheme is blatantly abused with perfectly healthy lazy scum who get a disabled badge so they can ferry their granny to hospital for an annual check up, then they just use the badge to park their lazy fat arses wherever they like. Disabled? Yeah, right!... Make them PAY to park. They can afford mobiles/scratch cards/lottery tickets/expensive TV's can they not? Then they can cough up to park like the rest of us and shut their self-serving whinging mouths.[/p][/quote]Just because you may not see someone with a disabled badge, have missing limbs etc, it does not mean they are not disabled. The majority of disabled badge holders would wish not to be disabled, given the choice and be as able bodied as possible. For those who wish to just rant about disabled people, get a life, because that’s what disabled people wish to do without the moaning.[/p][/quote]Bit like the guy in York tonight who parked on double yellow lines, bringing traffic to a halt, obstructing the flow through the traffic lights at the junction, tossed a "disabled" badge onto his dashboard - then promptly jumped out and RAN across the street to the cashpoint, eh? But then, maybe he had a 'hidden' disability perhaps? Yeah, that must have been the case... Can't see why I could have been annoyed by him at all, the poor crippled soul... AnarchyUK
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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