Lendal Bridge legal wrangle may last 3 months

Lendal Bridge legal wrangle may last 3 months

Lendal Bridge legal wrangle may last 3 months

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

A LEGAL wrangle over controversial traffic schemes in York could take up to three months to resolve and mean many drivers who breach the rules avoiding fines.

Government traffic adjudicator Stephen Knapp last week said City of York Council should not have issued penalty charge notices (PCNs) to tens of thousands of drivers through traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but the authority is now set to challenge his judgement.

In an email to Liberal Democrat group leader Coun Keith Aspden, the council’s director of city and environmental services Darren Richardson said legal advice meant the authority was “sufficiently confident” it could follow the next stage of the appeals process, and will be “lodging our intent” with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal this week. He said: “We are aware the Traffic Penalty Tribunal has a heavy caseload and therefore, realistically, would not expect to get a formal answer for up to three months.

“We will, however, be highlighting the sensitivity of this case in the national context and hope it could be prioritised accordingly.”

Mr Richardson’s email also confirmed traffic fines must be issued within 28 days of an offence but it will not be possible to resolve the Lendal Bridge and Coppergate issue within four weeks of Mr Knapp’s decision. The council is not currently issuing PCNs, although it is recording breaches on both routes, but the timescales mean many fines will expire.

Coun Aspden - who branded the Lendal Bridge scheme "a ridiculous state of affairs" - said a lengthy legal battle would cost taxpayers “a huge amount of money” and questioned why the council is monitoring traffic breaches if penalties cannot be issued within the time required. He said: “If the council cannot enforce the restrictions, they must lift them and reopen Lendal Bridge immediately.”

He also said it was still unclear how much the legal advice the council received from a QC had cost or "how much the council is prepared to throw at any legal challenge".

Mr Richardson has said the bridge trial’s aim was to reduce traffic using Lendal Bridge and through the city-centre "as part of a long-term vision to create an even more attractive and thriving city-centre for everybody", rather than to generate income for the counci. Mr Knapp's judgement also said he did not believe the trial had ever been introduced as a means of generating revenue for the authority.

The council reviewed and reduced the levels of enforcement once data from the six-month bridge trial, which ended on February 27, had been collected, saying this was being done at its discretion and meant "not every private vehicle breaching the restrictions has received a PCN". Mr Richardson said this was in line with similar schemes around the country, but drivers should continue to adhere to the restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate.

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:42pm Mon 7 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Boring.
Boring. York2000
  • Score: 92

4:48pm Mon 7 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Time to call it a day now chaps, you are doing yourselves no favours at all.
Time to call it a day now chaps, you are doing yourselves no favours at all. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -74

5:01pm Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

It's a ridiculous farce to continue this way. York is a laughing stock .

If CoYC are still recording knowing that if ever they were to send out fines they would be too late to be valid, then what is the point? The trial was over weeks ago.

End the farce, open the bridge.
It's a ridiculous farce to continue this way. York is a laughing stock . If CoYC are still recording knowing that if ever they were to send out fines they would be too late to be valid, then what is the point? The trial was over weeks ago. End the farce, open the bridge. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -69

5:31pm Mon 7 Apr 14

nowthen says...

I've just read this on Steve Galloway's Twitter page : The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bodge . ' As much as I know , it doesn't say who's set the deadline.
I've just read this on Steve Galloway's Twitter page : The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bodge . ' As much as I know , it doesn't say who's set the deadline. nowthen
  • Score: -83

5:46pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bridge

If they fail to do so, the government will be asked to intervene and hold a public Inquiry into the fiasco.

http://stevegalloway
.mycouncillor.org.uk
/2014/04/07/labour-g
iven-24-hours-to-scr
ap-access-restrictio
ns-on-lendal-bodge/
The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bridge If they fail to do so, the government will be asked to intervene and hold a public Inquiry into the fiasco. http://stevegalloway .mycouncillor.org.uk /2014/04/07/labour-g iven-24-hours-to-scr ap-access-restrictio ns-on-lendal-bodge/ YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -78

5:53pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

Enough of this farce. Get the restrictions lifted,pronto.
Enough of this farce. Get the restrictions lifted,pronto. bolero
  • Score: -49

5:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

The OX says...

All this farce should have been done in the first place, before they started the trial, all the costs should be taken out of them that put it in place
END IT NOW
All this farce should have been done in the first place, before they started the trial, all the costs should be taken out of them that put it in place END IT NOW The OX
  • Score: -21

5:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

The Junkyard Angel says...

Roll on the Local elections, James Alexander your days are numbered, sir
Roll on the Local elections, James Alexander your days are numbered, sir The Junkyard Angel
  • Score: 3

6:06pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bill bailey says...

If there is an enquiry then the Council members that took it upon themselves to
close Lendal Bridge and the fiasco that has followed should resign and pay the cost , And the commission paid to the company that oversaw the payments by the motorists.
If there is an enquiry then the Council members that took it upon themselves to close Lendal Bridge and the fiasco that has followed should resign and pay the cost , And the commission paid to the company that oversaw the payments by the motorists. bill bailey
  • Score: -4

6:10pm Mon 7 Apr 14

offa says...

Keep up the good work, CYC. It is a delight to walk through Exhibition Square and across the bridge with littlle traffic.
Keep up the good work, CYC. It is a delight to walk through Exhibition Square and across the bridge with littlle traffic. offa
  • Score: 23

6:12pm Mon 7 Apr 14

offa says...

Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.
Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels. offa
  • Score: 11

6:27pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

offa wrote:
Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.
It is better to moan and keep the balance of justice level, than to live a life of petty privilege devoid of true freedom.
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.[/p][/quote]It is better to moan and keep the balance of justice level, than to live a life of petty privilege devoid of true freedom. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -97

6:45pm Mon 7 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bridge

If they fail to do so, the government will be asked to intervene and hold a public Inquiry into the fiasco.

http://stevegalloway

.mycouncillor.org.uk

/2014/04/07/labour-g

iven-24-hours-to-scr

ap-access-restrictio

ns-on-lendal-bodge/
Evening.

Strong words from Mr Galloway - what's he basing this on?

Looks as though Darren R is the mouthpiece for the trial/debacle. Do you think he's being offered up as the sacrificial lamb? The continued silence from Alexander, Merrett and Simpson-Laing speaks volumes?

Regards,

Mutt
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bridge If they fail to do so, the government will be asked to intervene and hold a public Inquiry into the fiasco. http://stevegalloway .mycouncillor.org.uk /2014/04/07/labour-g iven-24-hours-to-scr ap-access-restrictio ns-on-lendal-bodge/[/p][/quote]Evening. Strong words from Mr Galloway - what's he basing this on? Looks as though Darren R is the mouthpiece for the trial/debacle. Do you think he's being offered up as the sacrificial lamb? The continued silence from Alexander, Merrett and Simpson-Laing speaks volumes? Regards, Mutt mutley12321
  • Score: -82

6:45pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bill bailey says...

The Junkyard Angel wrote:
Roll on the Local elections, James Alexander your days are numbered, sir
They certainly are, THE EX- POUNDSHOP BOY. will loose his nice his nice little earner , Back on the tills you idiot.
[quote][p][bold]The Junkyard Angel[/bold] wrote: Roll on the Local elections, James Alexander your days are numbered, sir[/p][/quote]They certainly are, THE EX- POUNDSHOP BOY. will loose his nice his nice little earner , Back on the tills you idiot. bill bailey
  • Score: -58

6:48pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

So the Chief Exec.of CoYC comes out with a statement this morning indicating that fines will be held over until things are sorted out. Again without checking the legal implications of this. It's then passed to the Orkney deserter to clarify that fines can only be withheld for 28 days. How KE can expect to get a job with any other council after the publicity that this debacle has raised is beyond me. She'd be lucky to get a job as a refuse collector. No offence to refuse collectors; you do a better job than she does.
So the Chief Exec.of CoYC comes out with a statement this morning indicating that fines will be held over until things are sorted out. Again without checking the legal implications of this. It's then passed to the Orkney deserter to clarify that fines can only be withheld for 28 days. How KE can expect to get a job with any other council after the publicity that this debacle has raised is beyond me. She'd be lucky to get a job as a refuse collector. No offence to refuse collectors; you do a better job than she does. bolero
  • Score: -40

6:56pm Mon 7 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City.

Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come.

If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments.

I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.??

Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme.

"More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat
ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car." pedalling paul
  • Score: 70

7:06pm Mon 7 Apr 14

york_chap says...

offa wrote:
Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.
Aww, don't be bitter now. I know it's rubbish standing at the bus stop in the pouring rain watching all the people drive past you in their comfortable, warm cars and knowing that they'll get to their destination quicker than you can (even with the bridge closed); but if you keep on saving the pennies you can have one too, one day. Maybe you could take on a paper round to get some extra?
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.[/p][/quote]Aww, don't be bitter now. I know it's rubbish standing at the bus stop in the pouring rain watching all the people drive past you in their comfortable, warm cars and knowing that they'll get to their destination quicker than you can (even with the bridge closed); but if you keep on saving the pennies you can have one too, one day. Maybe you could take on a paper round to get some extra? york_chap
  • Score: -99

7:09pm Mon 7 Apr 14

courier46 says...

But closing Lendal bridge Paul, is not reducing emissions just sending them elsewhere in York ,that`s the point!!
But closing Lendal bridge Paul, is not reducing emissions just sending them elsewhere in York ,that`s the point!! courier46
  • Score: -70

7:09pm Mon 7 Apr 14

The Junkyard Angel says...

York and a hung council ? ...... Pedalling Paul for once you may have a point ! ( the muttering of '12 feet of your best rope ,please ' can be heard in the distance )
York and a hung council ? ...... Pedalling Paul for once you may have a point ! ( the muttering of '12 feet of your best rope ,please ' can be heard in the distance ) The Junkyard Angel
  • Score: -95

7:12pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

mutley12321 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bridge

If they fail to do so, the government will be asked to intervene and hold a public Inquiry into the fiasco.

http://stevegalloway


.mycouncillor.org.uk


/2014/04/07/labour-g


iven-24-hours-to-scr


ap-access-restrictio


ns-on-lendal-bodge/
Evening.

Strong words from Mr Galloway - what's he basing this on?

Looks as though Darren R is the mouthpiece for the trial/debacle. Do you think he's being offered up as the sacrificial lamb? The continued silence from Alexander, Merrett and Simpson-Laing speaks volumes?

Regards,

Mutt
Strong words indeed Mutt.

We will see in 24hrs if its a bluff or for real.

Interesting that Darren Richardson is still being rolled out to take the flak, he's bailed why not have someone who is staying front the issues raised. After all Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”.

But the bail boy (Darren Richardson) different story while bunker boys (Coun Alexander, Coun Merrett) stay in the underground shelter.
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: The Council’s Labour leadership have been given 24 hours in which to withdraw the traffic access restrictions on Lendal Bridge If they fail to do so, the government will be asked to intervene and hold a public Inquiry into the fiasco. http://stevegalloway .mycouncillor.org.uk /2014/04/07/labour-g iven-24-hours-to-scr ap-access-restrictio ns-on-lendal-bodge/[/p][/quote]Evening. Strong words from Mr Galloway - what's he basing this on? Looks as though Darren R is the mouthpiece for the trial/debacle. Do you think he's being offered up as the sacrificial lamb? The continued silence from Alexander, Merrett and Simpson-Laing speaks volumes? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Strong words indeed Mutt. We will see in 24hrs if its a bluff or for real. Interesting that Darren Richardson is still being rolled out to take the flak, he's bailed why not have someone who is staying front the issues raised. After all Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”. But the bail boy (Darren Richardson) different story while bunker boys (Coun Alexander, Coun Merrett) stay in the underground shelter. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -92

7:12pm Mon 7 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City.

Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come.

If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments.

I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.??

Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme.

"More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat

ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
Evening Paul,

Passing the buck to Whitehall claiming heads should roll there and not here?!! You can do better surely! You're becoming the King of Deflection!! You seem to suggest all local councils are having the same issues? Are they? All of them?

Agree that we all look forward to reading the Institute of Transport Studies report when prepared and how this measures up against Mr Knapps’ report. Likewise, the mysterious legal advice the council are relying on will also be scrutinised. I'm assuming all these will be made public?!!?

You look forward to an apology for anyone having the audacity and nerve to question our elected councillors? Sorry, I didn’t realise they were above reproach and beyond challenge. Perhaps we “moaners” can expect an apology for this total mess of a scheme and the increasing costs of it? Also, if/when the scheme is abandoned, fines/interest refunded, costs are passed onto Council Tax Payers, will the council and everyone else involved with this have the “good grace” to resign?

I asked you on previous threads where your own “Peddling Paws” (do you see what I did there?!) are involved in this scheme? Surely someone impartial wouldn’t be so defensive off this scheme and the results to date??

Your comment on the experimental scheme? It’s a trial – there’s a difference.

No-one disagrees that traffic in York requires careful management. Feel free to bring ideas to the table that consults residents in their real concerns, whilst balancing any scheme against the impact on the environment. An example being shoving traffic to Clifton Green/Bridge and Foss Islands does not reduce pollution, just moves it elsewhere?


Regards,

Mutt.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."[/p][/quote]Evening Paul, Passing the buck to Whitehall claiming heads should roll there and not here?!! You can do better surely! You're becoming the King of Deflection!! You seem to suggest all local councils are having the same issues? Are they? All of them? Agree that we all look forward to reading the Institute of Transport Studies report when prepared and how this measures up against Mr Knapps’ report. Likewise, the mysterious legal advice the council are relying on will also be scrutinised. I'm assuming all these will be made public?!!? You look forward to an apology for anyone having the audacity and nerve to question our elected councillors? Sorry, I didn’t realise they were above reproach and beyond challenge. Perhaps we “moaners” can expect an apology for this total mess of a scheme and the increasing costs of it? Also, if/when the scheme is abandoned, fines/interest refunded, costs are passed onto Council Tax Payers, will the council and everyone else involved with this have the “good grace” to resign? I asked you on previous threads where your own “Peddling Paws” (do you see what I did there?!) are involved in this scheme? Surely someone impartial wouldn’t be so defensive off this scheme and the results to date?? Your comment on the experimental scheme? It’s a trial – there’s a difference. No-one disagrees that traffic in York requires careful management. Feel free to bring ideas to the table that consults residents in their real concerns, whilst balancing any scheme against the impact on the environment. An example being shoving traffic to Clifton Green/Bridge and Foss Islands does not reduce pollution, just moves it elsewhere? Regards, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: -68

7:32pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
pedalling paul wrote:

"Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come."

Totally irrelevant when debating points of law.

pedalling paul wrote:

"If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments."

I won't withrdraw my comments. Good faith is no defence if the law is broken. Try offering it as an excuse against a valid PCN.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."[/p][/quote]pedalling paul wrote: "Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come." Totally irrelevant when debating points of law. pedalling paul wrote: "If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments." I won't withrdraw my comments. Good faith is no defence if the law is broken. Try offering it as an excuse against a valid PCN. Sage9
  • Score: -32

7:38pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

If they think about it long enough, it must be obvious even to the idiots in the Council that the traffic adjudicator's office has thought this through carefully. The idea that an appeal to that department will result in a change in opinion is very optimistic. That means High Court action and at least twelve months and much money before a solution, unless CYC climb down.
If they think about it long enough, it must be obvious even to the idiots in the Council that the traffic adjudicator's office has thought this through carefully. The idea that an appeal to that department will result in a change in opinion is very optimistic. That means High Court action and at least twelve months and much money before a solution, unless CYC climb down. Sage9
  • Score: -21

7:43pm Mon 7 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City.

Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come.

If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments.

I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.??

Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme.

"More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat

ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
And where did you copy and paste that little gem from I wonder, Tin foil hat wearers weekly?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."[/p][/quote]And where did you copy and paste that little gem from I wonder, Tin foil hat wearers weekly? NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -18

7:47pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

There will always be delays when such matters become complex.

The councils throughout the country have to follow the traffic signs and general directions 2002 and traffic manuals and read each with each. Then they decide what is permissible; followed by complying with other legislation.
Finally all local transport issues are probably unique. Result is chaos. Winners are likely to be solicitors/barrister
s.

Wednesday on Radio York could be as good as ITMA/The Goon Show!
There will always be delays when such matters become complex. The councils throughout the country have to follow the traffic signs and general directions 2002 and traffic manuals and read each with each. Then they decide what is permissible; followed by complying with other legislation. Finally all local transport issues are probably unique. Result is chaos. Winners are likely to be solicitors/barrister s. Wednesday on Radio York could be as good as ITMA/The Goon Show! Cheeky face
  • Score: -140

7:50pm Mon 7 Apr 14

sixtyfourfive says...

mutley12321 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City.

Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come.

If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments.

I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.??

Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme.

"More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat


ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
Evening Paul,

Passing the buck to Whitehall claiming heads should roll there and not here?!! You can do better surely! You're becoming the King of Deflection!! You seem to suggest all local councils are having the same issues? Are they? All of them?

Agree that we all look forward to reading the Institute of Transport Studies report when prepared and how this measures up against Mr Knapps’ report. Likewise, the mysterious legal advice the council are relying on will also be scrutinised. I'm assuming all these will be made public?!!?

You look forward to an apology for anyone having the audacity and nerve to question our elected councillors? Sorry, I didn’t realise they were above reproach and beyond challenge. Perhaps we “moaners” can expect an apology for this total mess of a scheme and the increasing costs of it? Also, if/when the scheme is abandoned, fines/interest refunded, costs are passed onto Council Tax Payers, will the council and everyone else involved with this have the “good grace” to resign?

I asked you on previous threads where your own “Peddling Paws” (do you see what I did there?!) are involved in this scheme? Surely someone impartial wouldn’t be so defensive off this scheme and the results to date??

Your comment on the experimental scheme? It’s a trial – there’s a difference.

No-one disagrees that traffic in York requires careful management. Feel free to bring ideas to the table that consults residents in their real concerns, whilst balancing any scheme against the impact on the environment. An example being shoving traffic to Clifton Green/Bridge and Foss Islands does not reduce pollution, just moves it elsewhere?


Regards,

Mutt.
Interesting that at the recent COYC meeting (see video on website) Merrett, responding to Hepworths' (aka the "the Pedalling P...") rambling 3 minutes on behalf of cyclists and Fossgate improvements (?!), expressed a conflict of interest in that he is an honorary member of the CTC. No wonder Hepworth defends them to the hilt!
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."[/p][/quote]Evening Paul, Passing the buck to Whitehall claiming heads should roll there and not here?!! You can do better surely! You're becoming the King of Deflection!! You seem to suggest all local councils are having the same issues? Are they? All of them? Agree that we all look forward to reading the Institute of Transport Studies report when prepared and how this measures up against Mr Knapps’ report. Likewise, the mysterious legal advice the council are relying on will also be scrutinised. I'm assuming all these will be made public?!!? You look forward to an apology for anyone having the audacity and nerve to question our elected councillors? Sorry, I didn’t realise they were above reproach and beyond challenge. Perhaps we “moaners” can expect an apology for this total mess of a scheme and the increasing costs of it? Also, if/when the scheme is abandoned, fines/interest refunded, costs are passed onto Council Tax Payers, will the council and everyone else involved with this have the “good grace” to resign? I asked you on previous threads where your own “Peddling Paws” (do you see what I did there?!) are involved in this scheme? Surely someone impartial wouldn’t be so defensive off this scheme and the results to date?? Your comment on the experimental scheme? It’s a trial – there’s a difference. No-one disagrees that traffic in York requires careful management. Feel free to bring ideas to the table that consults residents in their real concerns, whilst balancing any scheme against the impact on the environment. An example being shoving traffic to Clifton Green/Bridge and Foss Islands does not reduce pollution, just moves it elsewhere? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Interesting that at the recent COYC meeting (see video on website) Merrett, responding to Hepworths' (aka the "the Pedalling P...") rambling 3 minutes on behalf of cyclists and Fossgate improvements (?!), expressed a conflict of interest in that he is an honorary member of the CTC. No wonder Hepworth defends them to the hilt! sixtyfourfive
  • Score: -125

7:52pm Mon 7 Apr 14

BioLogic says...

offa wrote:
Keep up the good work, CYC. It is a delight to walk through Exhibition Square and across the bridge with littlle traffic.
You may like the principle of the scheme, fair enough hat is your prerogative, but 'good work'? Even James Alexander has said in public he doesn't consider this good work, clear proof that even an idiot couldn't be so daft as to suggest this was a job well done!
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: Keep up the good work, CYC. It is a delight to walk through Exhibition Square and across the bridge with littlle traffic.[/p][/quote]You may like the principle of the scheme, fair enough hat is your prerogative, but 'good work'? Even James Alexander has said in public he doesn't consider this good work, clear proof that even an idiot couldn't be so daft as to suggest this was a job well done! BioLogic
  • Score: -128

7:53pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

3 Months !! My goodness how much more damage can be done in that time by a one man car hating congestion and pollution creating menace. I keep looking for the headline saying a resignation has been handed in at the council. Seems much like this whole scheme, some are still playing for time.
3 Months !! My goodness how much more damage can be done in that time by a one man car hating congestion and pollution creating menace. I keep looking for the headline saying a resignation has been handed in at the council. Seems much like this whole scheme, some are still playing for time. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -103

7:56pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

Time to ignore the restrictions en mass!!
Time to ignore the restrictions en mass!! Back and Beyond
  • Score: -88

7:58pm Mon 7 Apr 14

sixtyfourfive says...

mutley12321 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City.

Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come.

If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments.

I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.??

Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme.

"More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat


ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
Evening Paul,

Passing the buck to Whitehall claiming heads should roll there and not here?!! You can do better surely! You're becoming the King of Deflection!! You seem to suggest all local councils are having the same issues? Are they? All of them?

Agree that we all look forward to reading the Institute of Transport Studies report when prepared and how this measures up against Mr Knapps’ report. Likewise, the mysterious legal advice the council are relying on will also be scrutinised. I'm assuming all these will be made public?!!?

You look forward to an apology for anyone having the audacity and nerve to question our elected councillors? Sorry, I didn’t realise they were above reproach and beyond challenge. Perhaps we “moaners” can expect an apology for this total mess of a scheme and the increasing costs of it? Also, if/when the scheme is abandoned, fines/interest refunded, costs are passed onto Council Tax Payers, will the council and everyone else involved with this have the “good grace” to resign?

I asked you on previous threads where your own “Peddling Paws” (do you see what I did there?!) are involved in this scheme? Surely someone impartial wouldn’t be so defensive off this scheme and the results to date??

Your comment on the experimental scheme? It’s a trial – there’s a difference.

No-one disagrees that traffic in York requires careful management. Feel free to bring ideas to the table that consults residents in their real concerns, whilst balancing any scheme against the impact on the environment. An example being shoving traffic to Clifton Green/Bridge and Foss Islands does not reduce pollution, just moves it elsewhere?


Regards,

Mutt.
Interesting that at the recent COYC meeting (see video on website) Merrett, responding to Hepworths' (aka the "the Pedalling P...") rambling 3 minutes on behalf of cyclists and Fossgate improvements (?!), expressed a conflict of interest in that he is an honorary member of the CTC. No wonder Hepworth defends them to the hilt!
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."[/p][/quote]Evening Paul, Passing the buck to Whitehall claiming heads should roll there and not here?!! You can do better surely! You're becoming the King of Deflection!! You seem to suggest all local councils are having the same issues? Are they? All of them? Agree that we all look forward to reading the Institute of Transport Studies report when prepared and how this measures up against Mr Knapps’ report. Likewise, the mysterious legal advice the council are relying on will also be scrutinised. I'm assuming all these will be made public?!!? You look forward to an apology for anyone having the audacity and nerve to question our elected councillors? Sorry, I didn’t realise they were above reproach and beyond challenge. Perhaps we “moaners” can expect an apology for this total mess of a scheme and the increasing costs of it? Also, if/when the scheme is abandoned, fines/interest refunded, costs are passed onto Council Tax Payers, will the council and everyone else involved with this have the “good grace” to resign? I asked you on previous threads where your own “Peddling Paws” (do you see what I did there?!) are involved in this scheme? Surely someone impartial wouldn’t be so defensive off this scheme and the results to date?? Your comment on the experimental scheme? It’s a trial – there’s a difference. No-one disagrees that traffic in York requires careful management. Feel free to bring ideas to the table that consults residents in their real concerns, whilst balancing any scheme against the impact on the environment. An example being shoving traffic to Clifton Green/Bridge and Foss Islands does not reduce pollution, just moves it elsewhere? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Interesting that at the recent COYC meeting (see video on website) Merrett, responding to Hepworths' (aka the "the Pedalling P...") rambling 3 minutes on behalf of cyclists and Fossgate improvements (?!), expressed a conflict of interest in that he is an honorary member of the CTC. No wonder Hepworth defends them to the hilt! sixtyfourfive
  • Score: -77

8:31pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

Back and Beyond wrote:
Time to ignore the restrictions en mass!!
Just -6? disappointing...
[quote][p][bold]Back and Beyond[/bold] wrote: Time to ignore the restrictions en mass!![/p][/quote]Just -6? disappointing... Back and Beyond
  • Score: -33

8:43pm Mon 7 Apr 14

sihendry says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City.

Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come.

If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments.

I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.??

Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme.

"More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat

ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."
PP:

the quote you gave ( originally from an article on branding: https://www.fastcode
sign.com/1669023/how
-do-you-wean-people-
off-cars-by-rebrandi
ng-bikes-and-buses ) doesnt apply to the uk for the following reasons:

1. the projections for urban populations are,i presume,worldwide. the uk govt projects a 24% population increase over the same period,and a current urban population of around 80%. I'm sure you can see that in the UK,as far as we know, will have no need to double urban infrastructure by 2050

2. according to the DfT,transport emissions have remained broadly stable since 1990,they have NOT increased by a 1/3. again, you're quote is about the world, not the UK,and doesnt inform the debate in any way.

so neither of these can be used as 'underlying reasons for the experimental scheme'.

in fact, to the best of my knowledge, car use in York is relatively stable.

i wish i knew why car use was stable in an increasing York population,i would suggest that people are ALREADY making 'transport decisions' to avoid congestion and unnecessary cost, without interference from local govt.

ps i do enjoy giving out facts with no reference, but as you gave a quote without reference i'm sure you wont mind doing your own research! :-)
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Potentially flawed advice from Whitehall..? If proved to be the case then that is where heads should roll, not here in York. Darren Richardson rightly pointed out the national implications. This affect all Local Authorities, not just our City. Also we have the independent Institute of Transport Studies report to come. If it is found that our Council staff and Councillors have acted in good faith throughout, perhaps many of the regular moaners on this topic will have the good grace to withdraw their comments. I recall when York last had a hung Council. Would that perhaps be the best outcome for next year's elections.?? Here's some food for thought to make you all stop and consider the underlying reasons for the experimental scheme. "More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-relat ed emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional car."[/p][/quote]PP: the quote you gave ( originally from an article on branding: https://www.fastcode sign.com/1669023/how -do-you-wean-people- off-cars-by-rebrandi ng-bikes-and-buses ) doesnt apply to the uk for the following reasons: 1. the projections for urban populations are,i presume,worldwide. the uk govt projects a 24% population increase over the same period,and a current urban population of around 80%. I'm sure you can see that in the UK,as far as we know, will have no need to double urban infrastructure by 2050 2. according to the DfT,transport emissions have remained broadly stable since 1990,they have NOT increased by a 1/3. again, you're quote is about the world, not the UK,and doesnt inform the debate in any way. so neither of these can be used as 'underlying reasons for the experimental scheme'. in fact, to the best of my knowledge, car use in York is relatively stable. i wish i knew why car use was stable in an increasing York population,i would suggest that people are ALREADY making 'transport decisions' to avoid congestion and unnecessary cost, without interference from local govt. ps i do enjoy giving out facts with no reference, but as you gave a quote without reference i'm sure you wont mind doing your own research! :-) sihendry
  • Score: -23

8:44pm Mon 7 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

We all know journey times around the city have increased. Not one person has stated a journey involving the ring road which is now quicker. This means that CO2 emissions have increased. Longer journey times mean more emissions.
We all know journey times around the city have increased. Not one person has stated a journey involving the ring road which is now quicker. This means that CO2 emissions have increased. Longer journey times mean more emissions. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -117

8:47pm Mon 7 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

I think it has gone past the point where they should be voted out. If they had any grace in their souless bodies they would apologise and resign.
I think it has gone past the point where they should be voted out. If they had any grace in their souless bodies they would apologise and resign. eeoodares
  • Score: -108

9:18pm Mon 7 Apr 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

I must admit -even though it's costing me money in my council tax

I am rather enjoying this now!!!
I must admit -even though it's costing me money in my council tax I am rather enjoying this now!!! What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -80

9:24pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

How do you keep an idiot occupied….?

Answer:

Mark-Down Mongrel

Woof, Woof.
How do you keep an idiot occupied….? Answer: Mark-Down Mongrel Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -55

10:20pm Mon 7 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared. pedalling paul
  • Score: 36

11:11pm Mon 7 Apr 14

howmanymoretimes says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
Hi Paul

i didn't realise that the RAC/AA were charities and organised social activities.

I'll have to go and take a look to see what I've been missing.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.[/p][/quote]Hi Paul i didn't realise that the RAC/AA were charities and organised social activities. I'll have to go and take a look to see what I've been missing. howmanymoretimes
  • Score: -34

11:31pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
In your world it maybe has but in the real world it would seem not.

Here is some sensible thought about the long term according to the council.

Traffic volumes reduced between 2002 and 2005.
Since 2005 there has been no increase in the volume of traffic in York.
Between 2005 and 2012 pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% and more generally by 33%. In that same period there has been no increase in pollution other than vehicle emissions.
Buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets.

How do you achieve those staggering increased levels of pollution then without increasing the volume of traffic?
Simple - corral all the vehicles into a small space then make them stand there with their engines running and then make them move a small amount at a time so that they are always accelerating from a stand increasing fuel consumption by up to 400%.

How do you get out of this cycle.
Simple take out all of the anti car measures you put in between 2005 and 2012 and pollution will go down to levels lower than those in 2005 due to advances in vehicle emission technology.

Result of these measures.
Less people dying of pollution related diseases.
Cleaner air for all.
Reduced congestion.
Reduced travel times.
Increases in business efficiency.
York economy growing faster.
Happy people.
Town centre as popular as out of town shopping.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.[/p][/quote]In your world it maybe has but in the real world it would seem not. Here is some sensible thought about the long term according to the council. Traffic volumes reduced between 2002 and 2005. Since 2005 there has been no increase in the volume of traffic in York. Between 2005 and 2012 pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% and more generally by 33%. In that same period there has been no increase in pollution other than vehicle emissions. Buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets. How do you achieve those staggering increased levels of pollution then without increasing the volume of traffic? Simple - corral all the vehicles into a small space then make them stand there with their engines running and then make them move a small amount at a time so that they are always accelerating from a stand increasing fuel consumption by up to 400%. How do you get out of this cycle. Simple take out all of the anti car measures you put in between 2005 and 2012 and pollution will go down to levels lower than those in 2005 due to advances in vehicle emission technology. Result of these measures. Less people dying of pollution related diseases. Cleaner air for all. Reduced congestion. Reduced travel times. Increases in business efficiency. York economy growing faster. Happy people. Town centre as popular as out of town shopping. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -24

11:58pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Evening mark down person. I see you are hard at work right now. Just to let you know that I do appreciate you taking the time to mark down my scores I am watching you do it now by pressing F5 every now and again to check your progress. It does make me feel good that you should expend so much energy on my comments and spurs me on to make more. In no small part to keep you in work.

I suppose I had better say something to make this worthy of your attention.

????? The trial is over open the bridge.

There you are go for it. Thanks again.
Evening mark down person. I see you are hard at work right now. Just to let you know that I do appreciate you taking the time to mark down my scores I am watching you do it now by pressing F5 every now and again to check your progress. It does make me feel good that you should expend so much energy on my comments and spurs me on to make more. In no small part to keep you in work. I suppose I had better say something to make this worthy of your attention. ????? The trial is over open the bridge. There you are go for it. Thanks again. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -20

12:08am Tue 8 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

And just for your prompt attention to that.

The trial is over open the bridge.

Have lovely evening.
And just for your prompt attention to that. The trial is over open the bridge. Have lovely evening. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -8

12:26am Tue 8 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

What you think a bit of reverse psychology will work, put my scores up and it would stop me for now and save you some time marking them down. Nooooooooooooo!!

The councillors concerned should consider their positions very carefully over this debacle.
What you think a bit of reverse psychology will work, put my scores up and it would stop me for now and save you some time marking them down. Nooooooooooooo!! The councillors concerned should consider their positions very carefully over this debacle. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -39

12:30am Tue 8 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Now I don't know about you mark down person but I have to go to bed. I have a lot of council created congestion to sit in in the morning so have to get up 30 mins earlier than I used to when Lendal Bridge was open.

Night Night.
Now I don't know about you mark down person but I have to go to bed. I have a lot of council created congestion to sit in in the morning so have to get up 30 mins earlier than I used to when Lendal Bridge was open. Night Night. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -29

7:32am Tue 8 Apr 14

BioLogic says...

Seriously, who is going round marking all of these comments down. The only comments with any hint of positive opinion are not the comments that the majority of those reading the comments would consider to be 'good' it makes a mockery of the whole system!
Seriously, who is going round marking all of these comments down. The only comments with any hint of positive opinion are not the comments that the majority of those reading the comments would consider to be 'good' it makes a mockery of the whole system! BioLogic
  • Score: -25

8:50am Tue 8 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

howmanymoretimes wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
Hi Paul

i didn't realise that the RAC/AA were charities and organised social activities.

I'll have to go and take a look to see what I've been missing.
Visit https://www.ctc.org.
uk/current-campaigns for a flavour of what CTC does at national level. Remarkably similar membership benefits to the motoring organisations. Free third party insurance and legal aid, travel insurance, discount admissions, technical and touring advice.........etc . But maybe PH could comment further as he's sure to be a CTC member.
[quote][p][bold]howmanymoretimes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.[/p][/quote]Hi Paul i didn't realise that the RAC/AA were charities and organised social activities. I'll have to go and take a look to see what I've been missing.[/p][/quote]Visit https://www.ctc.org. uk/current-campaigns for a flavour of what CTC does at national level. Remarkably similar membership benefits to the motoring organisations. Free third party insurance and legal aid, travel insurance, discount admissions, technical and touring advice.........etc . But maybe PH could comment further as he's sure to be a CTC member. pedalling paul
  • Score: 19

8:56am Tue 8 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Paul we always tell you that the future of transport isn't cycling but you never listen! and the sack 'em brigade are right... they should be sacked. If they were in a company and lost them 2m they would be sacked?

This wasn’t about congestion or pollution Paul. They knew that from the start. This was about making additional funds to try and compensate for the loss of central funding.

All you points are invalid and biased. You are constantly at meetings voicing your opinions on what needs to be done and i have no doubt that you have an input into this scheme. Now it has failed you should have the decency to admit it. Roads should accommodate cyclists not be restricted for them!

Also Paul I suggest you do a Google search for illegal cycling in York. Its good viewing. The fact that all cycle lanes and lights are ignored by the majority. So how do you plan a "cycling future" around illegal cyclists?

Heads should role, a new party should be in, you should see how wrong this is and please stop quoting other research papers that are just as biased and irrational as you... having done a future transportation paper for York and done first had research I can tell you now that cycling is not the future...

So Paul please grow up admit you were wrong and move on from this. People on here might actually take you seriously and have some respect for you if you did.
Paul we always tell you that the future of transport isn't cycling but you never listen! and the sack 'em brigade are right... they should be sacked. If they were in a company and lost them 2m they would be sacked? This wasn’t about congestion or pollution Paul. They knew that from the start. This was about making additional funds to try and compensate for the loss of central funding. All you points are invalid and biased. You are constantly at meetings voicing your opinions on what needs to be done and i have no doubt that you have an input into this scheme. Now it has failed you should have the decency to admit it. Roads should accommodate cyclists not be restricted for them! Also Paul I suggest you do a Google search for illegal cycling in York. Its good viewing. The fact that all cycle lanes and lights are ignored by the majority. So how do you plan a "cycling future" around illegal cyclists? Heads should role, a new party should be in, you should see how wrong this is and please stop quoting other research papers that are just as biased and irrational as you... having done a future transportation paper for York and done first had research I can tell you now that cycling is not the future... So Paul please grow up admit you were wrong and move on from this. People on here might actually take you seriously and have some respect for you if you did. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -75

9:06am Tue 8 Apr 14

sihendry says...

PP:

from the CTC website:

"Through our network of local cycling development officers and Member Groups, we encourage and inspire people of all ages and backgrounds to experience the joys and benefits of cycling."

i can't find a similar statement on either the AA or RAC websites. Can you point me in the right direction? Obviously, to support your claim that RAC or AA membership should be declared at council meetings, you'll have evidence that their goals include encouraging car use.
PP: from the CTC website: "Through our network of local cycling development officers and Member Groups, we encourage and inspire people of all ages and backgrounds to experience the joys and benefits of cycling." i can't find a similar statement on either the AA or RAC websites. Can you point me in the right direction? Obviously, to support your claim that RAC or AA membership should be declared at council meetings, you'll have evidence that their goals include encouraging car use. sihendry
  • Score: -28

9:11am Tue 8 Apr 14

roskoboskovic says...

i think ycc should just reopen the bridge and concentrate on tidying the rest of york up.take a walk down george hudson street.it is an absolute disgrace especially the old council office.
i think ycc should just reopen the bridge and concentrate on tidying the rest of york up.take a walk down george hudson street.it is an absolute disgrace especially the old council office. roskoboskovic
  • Score: -29

10:08am Tue 8 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
Hmm - "the sack 'em all brigade".
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I seem to recall PP calling for sackings as well. The only difference was that PP wanted his chums protecting and the DVLC staff to be sacked instead.

Also, the AA and RAC are not "the motoring equivalents" of the CTC.
The CTC encourage more use of cycles, and want dedicated cycle lanes, where cars are banned.
The AA and RAC do not encourage more use of cars, and they don't want dedicated car lanes, where cycles are banned.
Being a member of the CTC could easily make someone prejudiced against cars, whereas being a member of the AA or RAC is unlikely to make someone prejudiced against cycles. In fact most AA/RAC members join for nothing other than breakdown assistance.

We don't mind fair debate Paul, and many of us are both motorists and cyclists. Turning everything into cars vs cycles isn't the answer.

On a brighter note, I was turning left from Nunnery Lane into Blossom Street this morning, and a lady cyclist was on the inside wanting to go straight on. The lights were at red, and she rode up the inside of a few cars, including mine. However, she didn't run a red light, and she didn't go to the front or try to race the traffic. Instead, she slowed down a couple of cars from the front, and rode with the traffic as it set off, in front of me and to the left, where I could clearly see her. I kept behind, leaving her room to go straight on before I turned left. She didn't need a cycle lane, I didn't need radar and we both got where we wanted to be. We had both done the right things and that's all it takes for cars and cycles to co-exist.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.[/p][/quote]Hmm - "the sack 'em all brigade". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I seem to recall PP calling for sackings as well. The only difference was that PP wanted his chums protecting and the DVLC staff to be sacked instead. Also, the AA and RAC are not "the motoring equivalents" of the CTC. The CTC encourage more use of cycles, and want dedicated cycle lanes, where cars are banned. The AA and RAC do not encourage more use of cars, and they don't want dedicated car lanes, where cycles are banned. Being a member of the CTC could easily make someone prejudiced against cars, whereas being a member of the AA or RAC is unlikely to make someone prejudiced against cycles. In fact most AA/RAC members join for nothing other than breakdown assistance. We don't mind fair debate Paul, and many of us are both motorists and cyclists. Turning everything into cars vs cycles isn't the answer. On a brighter note, I was turning left from Nunnery Lane into Blossom Street this morning, and a lady cyclist was on the inside wanting to go straight on. The lights were at red, and she rode up the inside of a few cars, including mine. However, she didn't run a red light, and she didn't go to the front or try to race the traffic. Instead, she slowed down a couple of cars from the front, and rode with the traffic as it set off, in front of me and to the left, where I could clearly see her. I kept behind, leaving her room to go straight on before I turned left. She didn't need a cycle lane, I didn't need radar and we both got where we wanted to be. We had both done the right things and that's all it takes for cars and cycles to co-exist. the original Homer
  • Score: 15

10:11am Tue 8 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

here you go paul.... no remind me why we waste all this money on paths & lights they dont use...

http://www.yorkmix.c
om/life/transport-li
fe/caught-on-film-th
e-york-cyclists-brea
king-the-law-every-d
ay/
here you go paul.... no remind me why we waste all this money on paths & lights they dont use... http://www.yorkmix.c om/life/transport-li fe/caught-on-film-th e-york-cyclists-brea king-the-law-every-d ay/ Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 11

11:25am Tue 8 Apr 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

In OTHER news. I think the readers of The Press have now just discovered who the culprit is for the extensive downward - upward arrowing on comments. Its Clearly 'Pedallinging Paul'.
In OTHER news. I think the readers of The Press have now just discovered who the culprit is for the extensive downward - upward arrowing on comments. Its Clearly 'Pedallinging Paul'. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 10

12:42pm Tue 8 Apr 14

bolero says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
In OTHER news. I think the readers of The Press have now just discovered who the culprit is for the extensive downward - upward arrowing on comments. Its Clearly 'Pedallinging Paul'.
Yes, there is little doubt. He's a very sad, sad man. He has never denied it.
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: In OTHER news. I think the readers of The Press have now just discovered who the culprit is for the extensive downward - upward arrowing on comments. Its Clearly 'Pedallinging Paul'.[/p][/quote]Yes, there is little doubt. He's a very sad, sad man. He has never denied it. bolero
  • Score: 6

12:52pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Osbaldwick Lad says...

Every time an article about a cycling accident appears my first thought is to wonder if Paul is involved. What I find difficult to work out is if I would be pleased of if I would feel sorry for him.
Every time an article about a cycling accident appears my first thought is to wonder if Paul is involved. What I find difficult to work out is if I would be pleased of if I would feel sorry for him. Osbaldwick Lad
  • Score: 5

1:07pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
here you go paul.... no remind me why we waste all this money on paths & lights they dont use...

http://www.yorkmix.c

om/life/transport-li

fe/caught-on-film-th

e-york-cyclists-brea

king-the-law-every-d

ay/
Several issues with that video, not the least of which being no time scale is given for all these incidents. If they took place over one day then we have a massive problem. If they took place over a year then big whoop.
Context is important.

Also, "Careful Cyclist" claims on his YouTube description that those filmed are "breaking every rule in the Highway Code" Not so. Are they reversing out of a junction? Parking on double yellows? Passing on the inside lane on the motorway?

And to all those who are looking to jump on "Careful Cyclist's" video as a tool to bash cyclists with should read the whole article on YorkMix -
"I have, on a number of occasions nearly been hit by inattentive or poor drivers."
"believes the situation is getting worse – but cyclists aren’t the only wrongdoers."
"I am currently working on videos that highlight the recklessness of some York car drivers and the danger York pedestrians place themselves in.”

I think YorkMix approached it from a very skewed angle and I think anyone who does use the video to bash cyclists with is very much missing "Careful Cyclist's" point - Respect each other.



PS OPEN THE BRIDGE!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: here you go paul.... no remind me why we waste all this money on paths & lights they dont use... http://www.yorkmix.c om/life/transport-li fe/caught-on-film-th e-york-cyclists-brea king-the-law-every-d ay/[/p][/quote]Several issues with that video, not the least of which being no time scale is given for all these incidents. If they took place over one day then we have a massive problem. If they took place over a year then big whoop. Context is important. Also, "Careful Cyclist" claims on his YouTube description that those filmed are "breaking every rule in the Highway Code" Not so. Are they reversing out of a junction? Parking on double yellows? Passing on the inside lane on the motorway? And to all those who are looking to jump on "Careful Cyclist's" video as a tool to bash cyclists with should read the whole article on YorkMix - "I have, on a number of occasions nearly been hit by inattentive or poor drivers." "believes the situation is getting worse – but cyclists aren’t the only wrongdoers." "I am currently working on videos that highlight the recklessness of some York car drivers and the danger York pedestrians place themselves in.” I think YorkMix approached it from a very skewed angle and I think anyone who does use the video to bash cyclists with is very much missing "Careful Cyclist's" point - Respect each other. PS OPEN THE BRIDGE! Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 8

1:20pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Matt RSJ says...

Easy way to find out who the Mark-Down Mongrel is:

Take notes of the positive and negative scores
Take the time they were taken
See who posts within that time

Easy way to confuse the Mark-Down Mongrel:

State how much Lendal Bridge has been hashed up.
Go on to say that at least the very same council are doing a good job with the bins.

REOPEN LENDAL NOW!! THESE NEGATIVE SCORES ARE FROM A SMALL GROUP (1 OR 2 AT BEST) OF PEOPLE - SMALLER THAN THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS (CA. 200,000) WHO WANT IT OPEN!!

Here, boy!! WOOF WOOF!!
Easy way to find out who the Mark-Down Mongrel is: Take notes of the positive and negative scores Take the time they were taken See who posts within that time Easy way to confuse the Mark-Down Mongrel: State how much Lendal Bridge has been hashed up. Go on to say that at least the very same council are doing a good job with the bins. REOPEN LENDAL NOW!! THESE NEGATIVE SCORES ARE FROM A SMALL GROUP (1 OR 2 AT BEST) OF PEOPLE - SMALLER THAN THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS (CA. 200,000) WHO WANT IT OPEN!! Here, boy!! WOOF WOOF!! Matt RSJ
  • Score: 2

1:23pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Matt RSJ says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
In your world it maybe has but in the real world it would seem not.

Here is some sensible thought about the long term according to the council.

Traffic volumes reduced between 2002 and 2005.
Since 2005 there has been no increase in the volume of traffic in York.
Between 2005 and 2012 pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% and more generally by 33%. In that same period there has been no increase in pollution other than vehicle emissions.
Buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets.

How do you achieve those staggering increased levels of pollution then without increasing the volume of traffic?
Simple - corral all the vehicles into a small space then make them stand there with their engines running and then make them move a small amount at a time so that they are always accelerating from a stand increasing fuel consumption by up to 400%.

How do you get out of this cycle.
Simple take out all of the anti car measures you put in between 2005 and 2012 and pollution will go down to levels lower than those in 2005 due to advances in vehicle emission technology.

Result of these measures.
Less people dying of pollution related diseases.
Cleaner air for all.
Reduced congestion.
Reduced travel times.
Increases in business efficiency.
York economy growing faster.
Happy people.
Town centre as popular as out of town shopping.
How the hell has this been marked down? It's more informative reading and more truthful than anything The Press has EVER printed.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.[/p][/quote]In your world it maybe has but in the real world it would seem not. Here is some sensible thought about the long term according to the council. Traffic volumes reduced between 2002 and 2005. Since 2005 there has been no increase in the volume of traffic in York. Between 2005 and 2012 pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% and more generally by 33%. In that same period there has been no increase in pollution other than vehicle emissions. Buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets. How do you achieve those staggering increased levels of pollution then without increasing the volume of traffic? Simple - corral all the vehicles into a small space then make them stand there with their engines running and then make them move a small amount at a time so that they are always accelerating from a stand increasing fuel consumption by up to 400%. How do you get out of this cycle. Simple take out all of the anti car measures you put in between 2005 and 2012 and pollution will go down to levels lower than those in 2005 due to advances in vehicle emission technology. Result of these measures. Less people dying of pollution related diseases. Cleaner air for all. Reduced congestion. Reduced travel times. Increases in business efficiency. York economy growing faster. Happy people. Town centre as popular as out of town shopping.[/p][/quote]How the hell has this been marked down? It's more informative reading and more truthful than anything The Press has EVER printed. Matt RSJ
  • Score: 6

1:33pm Tue 8 Apr 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Matt RSJ wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...!

Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.
In your world it maybe has but in the real world it would seem not.

Here is some sensible thought about the long term according to the council.

Traffic volumes reduced between 2002 and 2005.
Since 2005 there has been no increase in the volume of traffic in York.
Between 2005 and 2012 pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% and more generally by 33%. In that same period there has been no increase in pollution other than vehicle emissions.
Buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets.

How do you achieve those staggering increased levels of pollution then without increasing the volume of traffic?
Simple - corral all the vehicles into a small space then make them stand there with their engines running and then make them move a small amount at a time so that they are always accelerating from a stand increasing fuel consumption by up to 400%.

How do you get out of this cycle.
Simple take out all of the anti car measures you put in between 2005 and 2012 and pollution will go down to levels lower than those in 2005 due to advances in vehicle emission technology.

Result of these measures.
Less people dying of pollution related diseases.
Cleaner air for all.
Reduced congestion.
Reduced travel times.
Increases in business efficiency.
York economy growing faster.
Happy people.
Town centre as popular as out of town shopping.
How the hell has this been marked down? It's more informative reading and more truthful than anything The Press has EVER printed.
Because it winds people up, simple as that. The more we talk about it the more they will find it funny...

(And yes I am aware I'm not helping here, but needs must...)
[quote][p][bold]Matt RSJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm...seem to have stimulated some sensible thought about long term issues. Makes a change from the "sack 'em all" brigade...! Councillors declare interests as predjudicial or non-predjudicial and leave a meeting or remain in it as appropriate. Nothing sinister about CTC membership. How many pro-opening Councillors are members of the motoring equivalents ie the AA or RAC? Same thing..but strangely I've never heard it declared.[/p][/quote]In your world it maybe has but in the real world it would seem not. Here is some sensible thought about the long term according to the council. Traffic volumes reduced between 2002 and 2005. Since 2005 there has been no increase in the volume of traffic in York. Between 2005 and 2012 pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% and more generally by 33%. In that same period there has been no increase in pollution other than vehicle emissions. Buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets. How do you achieve those staggering increased levels of pollution then without increasing the volume of traffic? Simple - corral all the vehicles into a small space then make them stand there with their engines running and then make them move a small amount at a time so that they are always accelerating from a stand increasing fuel consumption by up to 400%. How do you get out of this cycle. Simple take out all of the anti car measures you put in between 2005 and 2012 and pollution will go down to levels lower than those in 2005 due to advances in vehicle emission technology. Result of these measures. Less people dying of pollution related diseases. Cleaner air for all. Reduced congestion. Reduced travel times. Increases in business efficiency. York economy growing faster. Happy people. Town centre as popular as out of town shopping.[/p][/quote]How the hell has this been marked down? It's more informative reading and more truthful than anything The Press has EVER printed.[/p][/quote]Because it winds people up, simple as that. The more we talk about it the more they will find it funny... (And yes I am aware I'm not helping here, but needs must...) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -1

1:53pm Tue 8 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Just been peering into my crystal ball.....I predict a Labour group meeting this evening, followed by JA going on the late Look North this evening, and on Radio York's breakfast show tomorrow. Unfortunately I can't predict what he will be saying at this point...the mists are not clearing sufficiently.

But at least the debate has not just consisted of "sack 'em all." There have been some intuitive comments about the problems that excessive private car use may store up for future generations, about the alternative travel choices for some but by no means all journeys, the accuracy of Govt. technical advice.

Has an ounce of practice been worth a ton of theory? I think that the experiment was well worth trying. The LibDems signed off the current Local Transport Plan, which indirectly led to the experiment. The Tories were initially prepared to support it.

Maybe we will get a hung Council in 2015. A spell of consensus politics may not be a bad thing.
Just been peering into my crystal ball.....I predict a Labour group meeting this evening, followed by JA going on the late Look North this evening, and on Radio York's breakfast show tomorrow. Unfortunately I can't predict what he will be saying at this point...the mists are not clearing sufficiently. But at least the debate has not just consisted of "sack 'em all." There have been some intuitive comments about the problems that excessive private car use may store up for future generations, about the alternative travel choices for some but by no means all journeys, the accuracy of Govt. technical advice. Has an ounce of practice been worth a ton of theory? I think that the experiment was well worth trying. The LibDems signed off the current Local Transport Plan, which indirectly led to the experiment. The Tories were initially prepared to support it. Maybe we will get a hung Council in 2015. A spell of consensus politics may not be a bad thing. pedalling paul
  • Score: -8

2:28pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Just been peering into my crystal ball.....I predict a Labour group meeting this evening, followed by JA going on the late Look North this evening, and on Radio York's breakfast show tomorrow. Unfortunately I can't predict what he will be saying at this point...the mists are not clearing sufficiently. But at least the debate has not just consisted of "sack 'em all." There have been some intuitive comments about the problems that excessive private car use may store up for future generations, about the alternative travel choices for some but by no means all journeys, the accuracy of Govt. technical advice. Has an ounce of practice been worth a ton of theory? I think that the experiment was well worth trying. The LibDems signed off the current Local Transport Plan, which indirectly led to the experiment. The Tories were initially prepared to support it. Maybe we will get a hung Council in 2015. A spell of consensus politics may not be a bad thing.
paul... everyone on this site wants them sacked for wasting 2m of our money. read the comments.

So trialling an illegal scheme for 6 whole months was worth 2m pound? Paul you are so deluded you’re a comment away from being sectioned?

Everyone knew the scheme would be a f@ck up from the start bar you and your labour "fwends". if you shut an inner ring road it effects traffic, if you dont put signs up people will get fined illegally and if you don’t reduce the amount of cars making a journey how was it ever going to reduce pollution. (its main objective!!!)

So no Paul it was not worth while and they should all be sacked! Don't dare use the governments technical advice as a fall back! The signs are fine now! its not their job to check its legal its York councils transport minister! Should he not be the suitable qualified person? or have people in his team for this? They knew all this at the start Paul! it was in the whistle blowers report! This was a money making scheme that has found them out because they are too dumb to even get a simple FPN scheme right! just like coppergate and just like the CCTV van.

The same applies for 20 is f@ckin plenty! Its like having Hitler in charge on roads in this city.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Just been peering into my crystal ball.....I predict a Labour group meeting this evening, followed by JA going on the late Look North this evening, and on Radio York's breakfast show tomorrow. Unfortunately I can't predict what he will be saying at this point...the mists are not clearing sufficiently. But at least the debate has not just consisted of "sack 'em all." There have been some intuitive comments about the problems that excessive private car use may store up for future generations, about the alternative travel choices for some but by no means all journeys, the accuracy of Govt. technical advice. Has an ounce of practice been worth a ton of theory? I think that the experiment was well worth trying. The LibDems signed off the current Local Transport Plan, which indirectly led to the experiment. The Tories were initially prepared to support it. Maybe we will get a hung Council in 2015. A spell of consensus politics may not be a bad thing.[/p][/quote]paul... everyone on this site wants them sacked for wasting 2m of our money. read the comments. So trialling an illegal scheme for 6 whole months was worth 2m pound? Paul you are so deluded you’re a comment away from being sectioned? Everyone knew the scheme would be a f@ck up from the start bar you and your labour "fwends". if you shut an inner ring road it effects traffic, if you dont put signs up people will get fined illegally and if you don’t reduce the amount of cars making a journey how was it ever going to reduce pollution. (its main objective!!!) So no Paul it was not worth while and they should all be sacked! Don't dare use the governments technical advice as a fall back! The signs are fine now! its not their job to check its legal its York councils transport minister! Should he not be the suitable qualified person? or have people in his team for this? They knew all this at the start Paul! it was in the whistle blowers report! This was a money making scheme that has found them out because they are too dumb to even get a simple FPN scheme right! just like coppergate and just like the CCTV van. The same applies for 20 is f@ckin plenty! Its like having Hitler in charge on roads in this city. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 8

2:38pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: here you go paul.... no remind me why we waste all this money on paths & lights they dont use... http://www.yorkmix.c om/life/transport-li fe/caught-on-film-th e-york-cyclists-brea king-the-law-every-d ay/
Several issues with that video, not the least of which being no time scale is given for all these incidents. If they took place over one day then we have a massive problem. If they took place over a year then big whoop. Context is important. Also, "Careful Cyclist" claims on his YouTube description that those filmed are "breaking every rule in the Highway Code" Not so. Are they reversing out of a junction? Parking on double yellows? Passing on the inside lane on the motorway? And to all those who are looking to jump on "Careful Cyclist's" video as a tool to bash cyclists with should read the whole article on YorkMix - "I have, on a number of occasions nearly been hit by inattentive or poor drivers." "believes the situation is getting worse – but cyclists aren’t the only wrongdoers." "I am currently working on videos that highlight the recklessness of some York car drivers and the danger York pedestrians place themselves in.” I think YorkMix approached it from a very skewed angle and I think anyone who does use the video to bash cyclists with is very much missing "Careful Cyclist's" point - Respect each other. PS OPEN THE BRIDGE!
I don’t see this as needing clarification. If this is just one guy on his bike in any one area then if its over 2 years its bad. If you notice then they all occur in the same areas, although the guy falling head over is a classic...

My point was simply why should we pay for all these cycle lane improvements and light sequences when they should be on the road and have to obey the road laws. And if pedalling labour Paul is correct and cycling is the only future how bad will it become? Paul wanted the brigde closed for it to be a cycling mecca... Does that justify this scheme? no. The video highlights why cyclists have a bad name and rightly so. I get that the chap filming is a cyclist and it even annoys him... and i bet cars do to. like the one that nearly knocked the lad off his bmx.

The simple fact is that motorists get the blame for poor cyclists. Cyclists get the blame for bad motorists. But spending money creating lanes and confusing lights (and giving them priority to overtake stationary traffic at lights) isn’t going to help.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: here you go paul.... no remind me why we waste all this money on paths & lights they dont use... http://www.yorkmix.c om/life/transport-li fe/caught-on-film-th e-york-cyclists-brea king-the-law-every-d ay/[/p][/quote]Several issues with that video, not the least of which being no time scale is given for all these incidents. If they took place over one day then we have a massive problem. If they took place over a year then big whoop. Context is important. Also, "Careful Cyclist" claims on his YouTube description that those filmed are "breaking every rule in the Highway Code" Not so. Are they reversing out of a junction? Parking on double yellows? Passing on the inside lane on the motorway? And to all those who are looking to jump on "Careful Cyclist's" video as a tool to bash cyclists with should read the whole article on YorkMix - "I have, on a number of occasions nearly been hit by inattentive or poor drivers." "believes the situation is getting worse – but cyclists aren’t the only wrongdoers." "I am currently working on videos that highlight the recklessness of some York car drivers and the danger York pedestrians place themselves in.” I think YorkMix approached it from a very skewed angle and I think anyone who does use the video to bash cyclists with is very much missing "Careful Cyclist's" point - Respect each other. PS OPEN THE BRIDGE![/p][/quote]I don’t see this as needing clarification. If this is just one guy on his bike in any one area then if its over 2 years its bad. If you notice then they all occur in the same areas, although the guy falling head over is a classic... My point was simply why should we pay for all these cycle lane improvements and light sequences when they should be on the road and have to obey the road laws. And if pedalling labour Paul is correct and cycling is the only future how bad will it become? Paul wanted the brigde closed for it to be a cycling mecca... Does that justify this scheme? no. The video highlights why cyclists have a bad name and rightly so. I get that the chap filming is a cyclist and it even annoys him... and i bet cars do to. like the one that nearly knocked the lad off his bmx. The simple fact is that motorists get the blame for poor cyclists. Cyclists get the blame for bad motorists. But spending money creating lanes and confusing lights (and giving them priority to overtake stationary traffic at lights) isn’t going to help. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 4

2:58pm Tue 8 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Just been peering into my crystal ball.....I predict a Labour group meeting this evening, followed by JA going on the late Look North this evening, and on Radio York's breakfast show tomorrow. Unfortunately I can't predict what he will be saying at this point...the mists are not clearing sufficiently.

But at least the debate has not just consisted of "sack 'em all." There have been some intuitive comments about the problems that excessive private car use may store up for future generations, about the alternative travel choices for some but by no means all journeys, the accuracy of Govt. technical advice.

Has an ounce of practice been worth a ton of theory? I think that the experiment was well worth trying. The LibDems signed off the current Local Transport Plan, which indirectly led to the experiment. The Tories were initially prepared to support it.

Maybe we will get a hung Council in 2015. A spell of consensus politics may not be a bad thing.
In general Paul, your conclusions are about right. We have had good discussions and suggestions, mixed with a fair bit of our Council bashing and your Car bashing.

I don't share your opinion that the experiment was worth trying though, at least not the way it was done.

An experimental closure, with a joined-up strategy to deal with knock-on effects, and without the camera PCNs might have been worthwhile.

I say "might", because it would still only have made sense if the Council were going to look at the results properly.

What we got was a half-baked experiment, with illegal PCNs. The trial showed increased congestion, no measurable improvement in bus times, and a lot of bad PR for York as a visitor attraction. It also cost a fortune.

Finally, the results are meaningless, because the signage was inadequate for at least 80% of the trial period. Effectively the restrictions were never in full operation, because many drivers inadvertently crossed the bridge or held up traffic by making last-minute U turns.

The discussions on here have been worthwhile, and have come from a core of about 20-40 frequent contributors, plus maybe another 40-50 occasional contributors.

If you say 100 people in all, the £2M could have been nicely divided at £20k each, and probably have been better value for money.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Just been peering into my crystal ball.....I predict a Labour group meeting this evening, followed by JA going on the late Look North this evening, and on Radio York's breakfast show tomorrow. Unfortunately I can't predict what he will be saying at this point...the mists are not clearing sufficiently. But at least the debate has not just consisted of "sack 'em all." There have been some intuitive comments about the problems that excessive private car use may store up for future generations, about the alternative travel choices for some but by no means all journeys, the accuracy of Govt. technical advice. Has an ounce of practice been worth a ton of theory? I think that the experiment was well worth trying. The LibDems signed off the current Local Transport Plan, which indirectly led to the experiment. The Tories were initially prepared to support it. Maybe we will get a hung Council in 2015. A spell of consensus politics may not be a bad thing.[/p][/quote]In general Paul, your conclusions are about right. We have had good discussions and suggestions, mixed with a fair bit of our Council bashing and your Car bashing. I don't share your opinion that the experiment was worth trying though, at least not the way it was done. An experimental closure, with a joined-up strategy to deal with knock-on effects, and without the camera PCNs might have been worthwhile. I say "might", because it would still only have made sense if the Council were going to look at the results properly. What we got was a half-baked experiment, with illegal PCNs. The trial showed increased congestion, no measurable improvement in bus times, and a lot of bad PR for York as a visitor attraction. It also cost a fortune. Finally, the results are meaningless, because the signage was inadequate for at least 80% of the trial period. Effectively the restrictions were never in full operation, because many drivers inadvertently crossed the bridge or held up traffic by making last-minute U turns. The discussions on here have been worthwhile, and have come from a core of about 20-40 frequent contributors, plus maybe another 40-50 occasional contributors. If you say 100 people in all, the £2M could have been nicely divided at £20k each, and probably have been better value for money. the original Homer
  • Score: 4

4:40pm Tue 8 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

york_chap wrote:
offa wrote: Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.
Aww, don't be bitter now. I know it's rubbish standing at the bus stop in the pouring rain watching all the people drive past you in their comfortable, warm cars and knowing that they'll get to their destination quicker than you can (even with the bridge closed); but if you keep on saving the pennies you can have one too, one day. Maybe you could take on a paper round to get some extra?
I think offa missed an "L" off the end if his name.
We have 3 cars and two motorbikes ones a real gas guzzling beast . Think il take it over lendal a few times to richen up the atmosphere when offal is waiting at the bus stop.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: Also, who is moaning? All the petty people who can't do without their little tin boxes on wheels.[/p][/quote]Aww, don't be bitter now. I know it's rubbish standing at the bus stop in the pouring rain watching all the people drive past you in their comfortable, warm cars and knowing that they'll get to their destination quicker than you can (even with the bridge closed); but if you keep on saving the pennies you can have one too, one day. Maybe you could take on a paper round to get some extra?[/p][/quote]I think offa missed an "L" off the end if his name. We have 3 cars and two motorbikes ones a real gas guzzling beast . Think il take it over lendal a few times to richen up the atmosphere when offal is waiting at the bus stop. the equalizer squad
  • Score: 1

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