All Lendal Bridge fines must be refunded, claims top lawyer

All Lendal Bridge fines must be refunded, claims top lawyer

Lendal Bridge, pictured during the trial

Traffic lawyer Nick Freeman, known as "Mr Loophole"

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

YORK council bosses must automatically refund all drivers caught and fined during the Lendal Bridge closure, according to renowned traffic laywer Nick Freeman.

The lawyer, known as "Mr Loophole" has spoken out following City of York council's announcement that it will reimburse anyone who applies for a refund, as a "gesture of goodwill". He said that by not automatically handing back the cash the council is illegally retaining money it has no right to.

He said: “They still don’t get it! City of York Council has to be proactive in this. It is unlawfully retaining money that does not belong to it and legally does not have a right to keep."

“There is only one course of action the council must now take - and that is to write and apologise to everyone it fined and enclose a cheque.

Mr Freeman, who has become famous through representing a number of celebrity clients who were accused of traffic offences, has dubbed the trial bridge closure "farcical". It saw 60,000 drivers caught and £1.3 million of cash generated for the council through fines.

The bridge closure trial was ended abruptly in April after heavy opposition from the public, and a Traffic Adjudicator ruled the closure had always been illegal.

The council initially challenged that ruling, and a similar one on the Coppergate bus lane, but on Friday announced it was dropping the challenge on Lendal Bridge and would offer the "goodwill" refunds to anyone who contacted them.

But the council's ruling Labour group has rejected Mr Freeman's calls and said it is time to "move on" three months after the trial's end. A spokesman added: "We do not accept the finding of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal as regards the lawful ability to regulate traffic in this way, and are therefore continuing to pursue a review of the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the permanent Coppergate Order. This is not a reversal of that position."

Opposition councillors have called on council leader James Alexander to resign over the issue.

Now Mr Freeman has raised questions about the costs of the whole debacle, and council's legal advice.

He added: “Very serious questions now need to be levelled at the council. The city’s tax payers have a right to know how much this fiasco has cost. Nothing less than a full investigation will suffice.

“Furthermore, the council justifies its position by maintaining it has received affirmative legal advice. Who has provided this advice? May we see it? Will it sue those lawyers involved? And if not why not?

The Labour spokesman said the "simple but sufficient" application process for refunds was in place to stop fraud and protect the public purse.

Have your say in the comments facility below, but please refrain from personal abuse.

Comments (103)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:21pm Mon 14 Jul 14

vax2002 says...

What the council are saying is "We are above the Law and will not obey it"
The barrister that judge in adjudication was the highest authority on such matters and the only way they could challenge was with a judicial review.
They in their incompetence have run out of time to file for judicial review.

Now they owe every penny back hey stole and yes I say Stole, what other word is for there for taking money illegally .
There is no "Good will" they owe it by law and with interest !

They tried to build a honey trap to twist money from visitors to the city and have seriously damaged trade as a result.
Now they have the audacity to refuse to refund those they conned unless they beg,

People of York, are these really the type of [people you think should be running a major tourist revenue city.
Shame on them and shame on their trough snouting arrogance.
What the council are saying is "We are above the Law and will not obey it" The barrister that judge in adjudication was the highest authority on such matters and the only way they could challenge was with a judicial review. They in their incompetence have run out of time to file for judicial review. Now they owe every penny back hey stole and yes I say Stole, what other word is for there for taking money illegally . There is no "Good will" they owe it by law and with interest ! They tried to build a honey trap to twist money from visitors to the city and have seriously damaged trade as a result. Now they have the audacity to refuse to refund those they conned unless they beg, People of York, are these really the type of [people you think should be running a major tourist revenue city. Shame on them and shame on their trough snouting arrogance. vax2002
  • Score: 155

9:25pm Mon 14 Jul 14

CHISSY1 says...

Give it to Cancer Research.
Give it to Cancer Research. CHISSY1
  • Score: 71

9:26pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Justin7 says...

So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York.

Well done Press, keep up the terrible work.

Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused).

End of story.
So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York. Well done Press, keep up the terrible work. Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused). End of story. Justin7
  • Score: -522

9:26pm Mon 14 Jul 14

piaggio1 says...

Think its all more or less bin said bout this lot..
But........edinboro city clowncil just beat you for sheer incompetence .......
Think its all more or less bin said bout this lot.. But........edinboro city clowncil just beat you for sheer incompetence ....... piaggio1
  • Score: 48

9:32pm Mon 14 Jul 14

piaggio1 says...

See justin.s woke up !!!!.ow do lad..it was.nt about not reading road signs....it wer just illegaly implemented nuff said.
See justin.s woke up !!!!.ow do lad..it was.nt about not reading road signs....it wer just illegaly implemented nuff said. piaggio1
  • Score: 100

9:44pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Silver says...

So how long will it be before the comments get closed? Taking all bets I'm betting before midnight!
So how long will it be before the comments get closed? Taking all bets I'm betting before midnight! Silver
  • Score: 60

9:45pm Mon 14 Jul 14

the spaniard says...

Justin7 wrote:
So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York.

Well done Press, keep up the terrible work.

Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused).

End of story.
You just don't get it! The signs were illegal! As you say, end of story.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York. Well done Press, keep up the terrible work. Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused). End of story.[/p][/quote]You just don't get it! The signs were illegal! As you say, end of story. the spaniard
  • Score: 110

9:49pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Jack Ham says...

Little more can be said on this.

Labour is desperately trying to avoid commenting by trying to divert attention onto a cross party transport group.

This latest advice begs serious questions about the quality of legal knowledge within CYC and it's ability to seek expert opinion. This in turn questions the competence of those at the very top.

The administration at CYC, Labour cabinet and senior officers is on the brink of collapse either through resignations, revelations from disgruntled Labour councillors, external scrutiny or legal action.

If not for the awful cost, both financial and reputational it would be almost fun to sit back, grab the popcorn and watch the show unfold.
Little more can be said on this. Labour is desperately trying to avoid commenting by trying to divert attention onto a cross party transport group. This latest advice begs serious questions about the quality of legal knowledge within CYC and it's ability to seek expert opinion. This in turn questions the competence of those at the very top. The administration at CYC, Labour cabinet and senior officers is on the brink of collapse either through resignations, revelations from disgruntled Labour councillors, external scrutiny or legal action. If not for the awful cost, both financial and reputational it would be almost fun to sit back, grab the popcorn and watch the show unfold. Jack Ham
  • Score: 109

9:52pm Mon 14 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Justin7 wrote:
So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York.

Well done Press, keep up the terrible work.

Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused).

End of story.
The restrictions put in place on Lendal Bridge by this council were judged to be illegal by a goverment adjudicator, yet what is really irritating is that you still don't understand the legalities of the issue.
This 'ambulance chasing lawyer' (your words) is qualified and competent to assess and comment, what are your qualifications?.
As a born and bred York citizen I am absolutly disgusted with what this council has done to this city, we are a laughing stock, who do you think is going to pay for all this in the longer term? YOU, you dim whit, along with me and everybody else who pays council tax to the council.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York. Well done Press, keep up the terrible work. Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused). End of story.[/p][/quote]The restrictions put in place on Lendal Bridge by this council were judged to be illegal by a goverment adjudicator, yet what is really irritating is that you still don't understand the legalities of the issue. This 'ambulance chasing lawyer' (your words) is qualified and competent to assess and comment, what are your qualifications?. As a born and bred York citizen I am absolutly disgusted with what this council has done to this city, we are a laughing stock, who do you think is going to pay for all this in the longer term? YOU, you dim whit, along with me and everybody else who pays council tax to the council. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 135

10:00pm Mon 14 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Do the right thing - CoYC, pay the money back without all the messing about. You know it would be the right thing to do.

As the councillors refused to listen to those against this closure, it should be the councillors who repay this money and not the long suffering York council tax payers.
Do the right thing - CoYC, pay the money back without all the messing about. You know it would be the right thing to do. As the councillors refused to listen to those against this closure, it should be the councillors who repay this money and not the long suffering York council tax payers. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 386

10:08pm Mon 14 Jul 14

jay, york says...

Justin7 wrote:
So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York. Well done Press, keep up the terrible work. Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused). End of story.
NOT TRUE COUNCILLER AND YOU WELL KNOW IT.
OK MR "LOOPHOLE" MAY HAVE COMMENTED (AND VERY ASTUTELY) - BUT THE STATEMENT THAT YOUR MUPPETS (aka cyc) APPEARS TO HAVE ACTED UNLAWFULLY COMES FROM A TOP GOVERNMENT AJUDICATOR.
NOW IT SEEMS THAT cyc WILL ONLY GIVE A REFUND IF SOMEONE PERSONALLY SENDS A REQUEST FOR IT.
SO cyc SHOULDNT HAVE FINED PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE - UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE AND NOT A LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON cyc HAVE SAID THEY WILL GIVE A REFUND OF THE ILLEGAL FINES - BUT ONLY IF PEOPLE REQUEST IT. IT WAS SAID THAT 80% OF THOSE FINES WERE TO VISITORS TO THE CITY - SO THEY MUST INTEND REFUNDING ABPPROX 20" OF FINES (IE. TO PEOPLE WHO READ THE PRESS.
THE BIG QUESTION BEGGING AN ANSWER IS - HOW IS THE COUNCIL GOING TO LET THEM KNOW HOW TOGET A REFUND OF AN ILLEGAL FINE?
THE SECOND BIG QUESTION IS - WHAT PLANET ARE THESE MUPPETS ON WHEN THEY CANNOT EVEN RECOGNISE WHAT IS LAWFUL AND WHAT IS NOT ???
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York. Well done Press, keep up the terrible work. Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused). End of story.[/p][/quote]NOT TRUE COUNCILLER AND YOU WELL KNOW IT. OK MR "LOOPHOLE" MAY HAVE COMMENTED (AND VERY ASTUTELY) - BUT THE STATEMENT THAT YOUR MUPPETS (aka cyc) APPEARS TO HAVE ACTED UNLAWFULLY COMES FROM A TOP GOVERNMENT AJUDICATOR. NOW IT SEEMS THAT cyc WILL ONLY GIVE A REFUND IF SOMEONE PERSONALLY SENDS A REQUEST FOR IT. SO cyc SHOULDNT HAVE FINED PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE - UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE AND NOT A LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON cyc HAVE SAID THEY WILL GIVE A REFUND OF THE ILLEGAL FINES - BUT ONLY IF PEOPLE REQUEST IT. IT WAS SAID THAT 80% OF THOSE FINES WERE TO VISITORS TO THE CITY - SO THEY MUST INTEND REFUNDING ABPPROX 20" OF FINES (IE. TO PEOPLE WHO READ THE PRESS. THE BIG QUESTION BEGGING AN ANSWER IS - HOW IS THE COUNCIL GOING TO LET THEM KNOW HOW TOGET A REFUND OF AN ILLEGAL FINE? THE SECOND BIG QUESTION IS - WHAT PLANET ARE THESE MUPPETS ON WHEN THEY CANNOT EVEN RECOGNISE WHAT IS LAWFUL AND WHAT IS NOT ??? jay, york
  • Score: 92

10:10pm Mon 14 Jul 14

eeoodares says...

I understand why the Council are not doing the right thing, they have not got the money, they are scared of people finding out the real cost. If there is a legal challenge to their actions the costs could be horrendous. I would not be surprised if this goes to Judicial review. The Councillors realise that they will be long gone by then and it will be down to their replacements to dig the City out of debt.

But prepare yourself York, there will be MASSIVE cuts in services to pay for this lot!
I understand why the Council are not doing the right thing, they have not got the money, they are scared of people finding out the real cost. If there is a legal challenge to their actions the costs could be horrendous. I would not be surprised if this goes to Judicial review. The Councillors realise that they will be long gone by then and it will be down to their replacements to dig the City out of debt. But prepare yourself York, there will be MASSIVE cuts in services to pay for this lot! eeoodares
  • Score: 200

10:18pm Mon 14 Jul 14

piaggio1 says...

An how about england chippin in a few bob.
We all know your game lass...!
Dont worry...it will ALL come out....
An how about england chippin in a few bob. We all know your game lass...! Dont worry...it will ALL come out.... piaggio1
  • Score: 60

10:21pm Mon 14 Jul 14

piaggio1 says...

10.20pm...all scores +
10.21pm.........mark down monkey is onboard..
10.20pm...all scores + 10.21pm.........mark down monkey is onboard.. piaggio1
  • Score: 100

10:34pm Mon 14 Jul 14

gmc_1963 says...

So given that I didn't use Lendal Bridge because of this unjustified closure, can I now claim compensation for having to make a detour around the City ?
So given that I didn't use Lendal Bridge because of this unjustified closure, can I now claim compensation for having to make a detour around the City ? gmc_1963
  • Score: 139

10:37pm Mon 14 Jul 14

bolero says...

Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.
Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face. bolero
  • Score: 192

10:44pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Bailed Out says...

Justin7 wrote:
So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York.

Well done Press, keep up the terrible work.

Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused).

End of story.
You got any qualifcations in law ?
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: So an ambulance chaser of a lawyer is getting more free advertising by making assumptions that would damage the people of York. Well done Press, keep up the terrible work. Bottom line is why refund people who can't read road signs? Most of them are tourists thinking it's a theme park where they can do what they want (you see them driving down Coney Street all confused). End of story.[/p][/quote]You got any qualifcations in law ? Bailed Out
  • Score: 91

10:49pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Bailed Out says...

Modern day Dick Turpins. And we all know what happend to him.
Modern day Dick Turpins. And we all know what happend to him. Bailed Out
  • Score: 178

10:54pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Jiminy Cricket says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Little more can be said on this.

Labour is desperately trying to avoid commenting by trying to divert attention onto a cross party transport group.

This latest advice begs serious questions about the quality of legal knowledge within CYC and it's ability to seek expert opinion. This in turn questions the competence of those at the very top.

The administration at CYC, Labour cabinet and senior officers is on the brink of collapse either through resignations, revelations from disgruntled Labour councillors, external scrutiny or legal action.

If not for the awful cost, both financial and reputational it would be almost fun to sit back, grab the popcorn and watch the show unfold.
Couldn't agree more. I'm certain there's still a lot more waiting to be unearthed
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: Little more can be said on this. Labour is desperately trying to avoid commenting by trying to divert attention onto a cross party transport group. This latest advice begs serious questions about the quality of legal knowledge within CYC and it's ability to seek expert opinion. This in turn questions the competence of those at the very top. The administration at CYC, Labour cabinet and senior officers is on the brink of collapse either through resignations, revelations from disgruntled Labour councillors, external scrutiny or legal action. If not for the awful cost, both financial and reputational it would be almost fun to sit back, grab the popcorn and watch the show unfold.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. I'm certain there's still a lot more waiting to be unearthed Jiminy Cricket
  • Score: 80

10:59pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Jiminy Cricket says...

bolero wrote:
Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.
Councillors will be judged at the ballot box (not soon enough for some) but we will still be left with officers who are incompetent and/or corrupt. How do we get rid of them?
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.[/p][/quote]Councillors will be judged at the ballot box (not soon enough for some) but we will still be left with officers who are incompetent and/or corrupt. How do we get rid of them? Jiminy Cricket
  • Score: 359

11:21pm Mon 14 Jul 14

bolero says...

We are specifically requested to refrain from using personal abuse when participating in these postings and yet we are aware that some individual is constantly interfering with the voting system. I regard it as personal abuse towards the views i have expressed when those views are swayed by this interference but it is allowed to continue day after day. The publishers must be aware of this individuals identity and choose to take no action, ignoring the fact that it brings their publication into disrepute and destroys all credibility.
We are specifically requested to refrain from using personal abuse when participating in these postings and yet we are aware that some individual is constantly interfering with the voting system. I regard it as personal abuse towards the views i have expressed when those views are swayed by this interference but it is allowed to continue day after day. The publishers must be aware of this individuals identity and choose to take no action, ignoring the fact that it brings their publication into disrepute and destroys all credibility. bolero
  • Score: 80

11:36pm Mon 14 Jul 14

eeoodares says...

York Press IT dept. if you can not stop the vote rigging, do you think you should pass the baton on to somebody who can!
York Press IT dept. if you can not stop the vote rigging, do you think you should pass the baton on to somebody who can! eeoodares
  • Score: 92

11:58pm Mon 14 Jul 14

marvell says...

Nick Freeman may be a self publicist but every point he makes is spot on. The Council and the Labour administration are shameless when it comes to trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion - that they got this utterly wrong and are breaking the law by retaining the money.
Nick Freeman may be a self publicist but every point he makes is spot on. The Council and the Labour administration are shameless when it comes to trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion - that they got this utterly wrong and are breaking the law by retaining the money. marvell
  • Score: 96

12:41am Tue 15 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Evening score adjusting thing another one to have a go at.

It is surprising how far the council will go to protect Mr Merrett. I believe he said he would resign if he was wrong about the legality of the fines? So the council say they are doing this as a gesture of goodwill and they don't accept the findings of the investigation. So they will go on spending our money challenging this just so that one man does not have to stick to his word. Why not just give it up admit it was not legal and then Mr Merrett can just carry on inflicting traffic and pollution misery on the residents of York and we will have only been mislead once more and we are used to that by now.
Evening score adjusting thing another one to have a go at. It is surprising how far the council will go to protect Mr Merrett. I believe he said he would resign if he was wrong about the legality of the fines? So the council say they are doing this as a gesture of goodwill and they don't accept the findings of the investigation. So they will go on spending our money challenging this just so that one man does not have to stick to his word. Why not just give it up admit it was not legal and then Mr Merrett can just carry on inflicting traffic and pollution misery on the residents of York and we will have only been mislead once more and we are used to that by now. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 170

4:46am Tue 15 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

well that's great, just allow more column space to yet another lawyer after more clients so his wallet can bulge even more at the expense of council tax payer who will, eventually, end up footing the bill of associated legals costs for refunding each and every motorist's fine who went over the bridge. I wonder if the council will be refunding all the coach companies have have, and still are, being fined for going over the bridge - the signage for coaches is even worse than the signs were for cars crossing the bridge when it was 'closed'!!
well that's great, just allow more column space to yet another lawyer after more clients so his wallet can bulge even more at the expense of council tax payer who will, eventually, end up footing the bill of associated legals costs for refunding each and every motorist's fine who went over the bridge. I wonder if the council will be refunding all the coach companies have have, and still are, being fined for going over the bridge - the signage for coaches is even worse than the signs were for cars crossing the bridge when it was 'closed'!! Magicman!
  • Score: 168

6:48am Tue 15 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bolero wrote:
We are specifically requested to refrain from using personal abuse when participating in these postings and yet we are aware that some individual is constantly interfering with the voting system. I regard it as personal abuse towards the views i have expressed when those views are swayed by this interference but it is allowed to continue day after day. The publishers must be aware of this individuals identity and choose to take no action, ignoring the fact that it brings their publication into disrepute and destroys all credibility.
I wrote to the press back in May:

I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them.
However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion.
Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example.
Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all.

The press replied:

We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this.

Regards
Steve Hughes
Editor

So your right, the press have double standards, still, the very fact the comments are interfered with can't disguise the truth of what we say.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: We are specifically requested to refrain from using personal abuse when participating in these postings and yet we are aware that some individual is constantly interfering with the voting system. I regard it as personal abuse towards the views i have expressed when those views are swayed by this interference but it is allowed to continue day after day. The publishers must be aware of this individuals identity and choose to take no action, ignoring the fact that it brings their publication into disrepute and destroys all credibility.[/p][/quote]I wrote to the press back in May: I am an avid reader of the news articles on the press web site, and the comments associated with them. However the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" facility which I assume is supposed to relate to how many agree or disagree with whatever issue is being discussed puzzles me in that there appears to be huge differentials for it to be a true reflection of opinion. Quite a few commenters it would seem are of an opinion that the system is being abused by a third party or parties - to give the wrong impression - by vastly under scoring or over scoring comments on contentious topics, such as the recent Lendal Bridge issue for example. Would it not be better for the Press to update its web site and remove this facility, or do they condone the practice of what is to me a blatant manipulation of the system in order to make topics look as though they have huge support or no support at all. The press replied: We are aware that this is being abused and mostly on stories concerning City of York Council. This service is provided to us by a central team that services all of the papers across the country that are owned by our parent company Newsquest. We are currently talking to them about this. Regards Steve Hughes Editor So your right, the press have double standards, still, the very fact the comments are interfered with can't disguise the truth of what we say. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 85

6:55am Tue 15 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Magicman! wrote:
well that's great, just allow more column space to yet another lawyer after more clients so his wallet can bulge even more at the expense of council tax payer who will, eventually, end up footing the bill of associated legals costs for refunding each and every motorist's fine who went over the bridge. I wonder if the council will be refunding all the coach companies have have, and still are, being fined for going over the bridge - the signage for coaches is even worse than the signs were for cars crossing the bridge when it was 'closed'!!
It's not the fault of Nick Freeman that we will ultimately end up paying in some way for the mistakes of this administration is it? So why not criticise the cause of it all?.
Coaches going over the bridge are a different issue.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: well that's great, just allow more column space to yet another lawyer after more clients so his wallet can bulge even more at the expense of council tax payer who will, eventually, end up footing the bill of associated legals costs for refunding each and every motorist's fine who went over the bridge. I wonder if the council will be refunding all the coach companies have have, and still are, being fined for going over the bridge - the signage for coaches is even worse than the signs were for cars crossing the bridge when it was 'closed'!![/p][/quote]It's not the fault of Nick Freeman that we will ultimately end up paying in some way for the mistakes of this administration is it? So why not criticise the cause of it all?. Coaches going over the bridge are a different issue. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 68

7:50am Tue 15 Jul 14

pedalling paul says...

Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved. pedalling paul
  • Score: -337

8:07am Tue 15 Jul 14

howmanymoretimes says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Please stick to the topic Paul
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Please stick to the topic Paul howmanymoretimes
  • Score: 167

8:29am Tue 15 Jul 14

GMuser says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP.
Everyone is bored with your same old story line.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line. GMuser
  • Score: 43

8:35am Tue 15 Jul 14

uriahh says...

Ask the question: "why did the CYC withdraw their appeal against this Adjudicator's ruling?" The likely answer is they that have had further advice that they have no grounds for appeal. Their subsequent "qualified" offer to refund fines is a tactical decision, not only to limit the amount of money they will have to pay back plus interest and with sizeable administration costs, but also to minimise their exposure and avoid further investigations into their general activities. Using the term "goodwill" is cynical and offensive!

It would appear that the Labour Party's CYC is rapidly turning out to be similar to that of Ken Livingston and the GLC's debacle in the early 80's!
Ask the question: "why did the CYC withdraw their appeal against this Adjudicator's ruling?" The likely answer is they that have had further advice that they have no grounds for appeal. Their subsequent "qualified" offer to refund fines is a tactical decision, not only to limit the amount of money they will have to pay back plus interest and with sizeable administration costs, but also to minimise their exposure and avoid further investigations into their general activities. Using the term "goodwill" is cynical and offensive! It would appear that the Labour Party's CYC is rapidly turning out to be similar to that of Ken Livingston and the GLC's debacle in the early 80's! uriahh
  • Score: 27

8:55am Tue 15 Jul 14

the original Homer says...

The Council are still not understanding what the adjudicator said. From the article above, it seems York Press haven't got it either.

You can say it whichever way you want - the closure was OK, it was legal, it was not illegal. Even the adjudicator agrees with that, so there was never ever going to be any sort of appeal, as no-one said anything to appeal against. CoYC can restrict any traffic from using any road, even if they have exceptions that many can't fathom.

The illegal bit, which the adjudicator picked up, was using cameras to capture evidence and issue penalty notices. Even though the restrictions are perfectly legal, they are of a type where automatic cameras can't be used to enforce them. That is where the Council could appeal (although the consensus seems to be that they'd lose).

The current policy of "refund by application" rather than "refund everyone" may now be the best way of making some good out of a job badly done. It isn't morally right that tourists will not know to apply, but from a purely financial standpoint it will save Council Tax payers' money and the damage done to tourism is probably irreversible anyway.
The Council are still not understanding what the adjudicator said. From the article above, it seems York Press haven't got it either. You can say it whichever way you want - the closure was OK, it was legal, it was not illegal. Even the adjudicator agrees with that, so there was never ever going to be any sort of appeal, as no-one said anything to appeal against. CoYC can restrict any traffic from using any road, even if they have exceptions that many can't fathom. The illegal bit, which the adjudicator picked up, was using cameras to capture evidence and issue penalty notices. Even though the restrictions are perfectly legal, they are of a type where automatic cameras can't be used to enforce them. That is where the Council could appeal (although the consensus seems to be that they'd lose). The current policy of "refund by application" rather than "refund everyone" may now be the best way of making some good out of a job badly done. It isn't morally right that tourists will not know to apply, but from a purely financial standpoint it will save Council Tax payers' money and the damage done to tourism is probably irreversible anyway. the original Homer
  • Score: -3

8:57am Tue 15 Jul 14

RingoStarr says...

GMuser wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP.
Everyone is bored with your same old story line.
Aw, come on GMuser, be kind and tolerant of someone who obviously suffers some serious 'special needs' problems and whose comments give many of us a hearty laugh.
[quote][p][bold]GMuser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line.[/p][/quote]Aw, come on GMuser, be kind and tolerant of someone who obviously suffers some serious 'special needs' problems and whose comments give many of us a hearty laugh. RingoStarr
  • Score: 24

8:58am Tue 15 Jul 14

pedalling paul says...

GMuser wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP.
Everyone is bored with your same old story line.
That's two heads in the sand so far....any more?
[quote][p][bold]GMuser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line.[/p][/quote]That's two heads in the sand so far....any more? pedalling paul
  • Score: -30

9:02am Tue 15 Jul 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

pedalling paul wrote:
GMuser wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP.
Everyone is bored with your same old story line.
That's two heads in the sand so far....any more?
Better than stuck somewhere else eh Paul...
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GMuser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line.[/p][/quote]That's two heads in the sand so far....any more?[/p][/quote]Better than stuck somewhere else eh Paul... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 37

9:06am Tue 15 Jul 14

smudge2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Are you winding York Residents up again Mr Hepworth ??
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Are you winding York Residents up again Mr Hepworth ?? smudge2
  • Score: 27

9:23am Tue 15 Jul 14

York2000 says...

''Have your say in the comments facility below, but please refrain from personal abuse ''

So the Press has finally clocked that it's comments threads are making a joke of the city's main news provider. Won't stop you all though, eh?
''Have your say in the comments facility below, but please refrain from personal abuse '' So the Press has finally clocked that it's comments threads are making a joke of the city's main news provider. Won't stop you all though, eh? York2000
  • Score: 10

9:31am Tue 15 Jul 14

yorkandproud says...

"Gesture of goodwill" . Sadly , Alexander and his cronies wouldn't know what goodwill is if it smacked them in the face. Disgrace to the name of the Labour Party.
"Gesture of goodwill" . Sadly , Alexander and his cronies wouldn't know what goodwill is if it smacked them in the face. Disgrace to the name of the Labour Party. yorkandproud
  • Score: 34

9:51am Tue 15 Jul 14

courier46 says...

Mr Freeman says "they still don't get it" I beg to differ they know exactly what they are doing and have NO shame and I don't recognise them as leaders of York council.
There are at least 5 that should now resign!
Mr Freeman says "they still don't get it" I beg to differ they know exactly what they are doing and have NO shame and I don't recognise them as leaders of York council. There are at least 5 that should now resign! courier46
  • Score: 30

9:58am Tue 15 Jul 14

the original Homer says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
There are actually some sensible bits in PP's post.

However, car drivers are probably the biggest group of urban road users, so Paul's "car user's paradise" phrase will always get him more enemies than friends.

Most of us car drivers can see that peak time traffic delays need a solution, and that the solution may well involve restricting some users for the benefit of others. Of course, we are all selfish and want the benefit personally without the pain personally, but that's human nature.

The problem is not easy to solve, and piecemeal patches such as bridge closures, cycle lanes, and bus lanes don't tend to hep. Typically, they have a small benefit in the immediate area and a bigger negative effect somewhere else, either by displacing traffic or by creating a pinch-point.

There is a basic principle to recognise - you can't change car drivers' habits by using force, they have to be persuaded by better alternatives.

Park and Ride may not suit everybody, but good signage would get more visitors using it and that would help.

The biggest benefit to traffic though would be getting regular commuters and shoppers to use P&R. Before anyone shoots that down, I know it would't work for many people, but I'm sure there are a significant number it could work for (and that would reduce traffic for those who can't use P&R).

I'd like to see a trial done with a flat £1 return fare, or even free. It only needs to be tried for a few weeks, and maybe even only selected days and/or selected times. That must be easier and cheaper than changing the infrastructure, and could have a very big effect very quickly. It needs somebody to do the sums and somebody to work out how it would work for the bus company.

I commute and park near the centre every day. P&R would be slightly slower for me, but I'd put up with that if the price was right. I know many others with similar views, and all our cars are currently in those queues twice a day. Some of us have experimented with car sharing,and with walking, cycling and P&R. Of those, P&R was the only one we'd use regularly, but we all chose not to because of the cost. We aren't a huge cross-section of all the car drivers out there, but I bet there are many others like us. Incentivise us financially and we'll keep our cars out of the City.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]There are actually some sensible bits in PP's post. However, car drivers are probably the biggest group of urban road users, so Paul's "car user's paradise" phrase will always get him more enemies than friends. Most of us car drivers can see that peak time traffic delays need a solution, and that the solution may well involve restricting some users for the benefit of others. Of course, we are all selfish and want the benefit personally without the pain personally, but that's human nature. The problem is not easy to solve, and piecemeal patches such as bridge closures, cycle lanes, and bus lanes don't tend to hep. Typically, they have a small benefit in the immediate area and a bigger negative effect somewhere else, either by displacing traffic or by creating a pinch-point. There is a basic principle to recognise - you can't change car drivers' habits by using force, they have to be persuaded by better alternatives. Park and Ride may not suit everybody, but good signage would get more visitors using it and that would help. The biggest benefit to traffic though would be getting regular commuters and shoppers to use P&R. Before anyone shoots that down, I know it would't work for many people, but I'm sure there are a significant number it could work for (and that would reduce traffic for those who can't use P&R). I'd like to see a trial done with a flat £1 return fare, or even free. It only needs to be tried for a few weeks, and maybe even only selected days and/or selected times. That must be easier and cheaper than changing the infrastructure, and could have a very big effect very quickly. It needs somebody to do the sums and somebody to work out how it would work for the bus company. I commute and park near the centre every day. P&R would be slightly slower for me, but I'd put up with that if the price was right. I know many others with similar views, and all our cars are currently in those queues twice a day. Some of us have experimented with car sharing,and with walking, cycling and P&R. Of those, P&R was the only one we'd use regularly, but we all chose not to because of the cost. We aren't a huge cross-section of all the car drivers out there, but I bet there are many others like us. Incentivise us financially and we'll keep our cars out of the City. the original Homer
  • Score: 18

10:22am Tue 15 Jul 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Dear Paul, if you posted the above type post (which really says mostly what you are saying too), your conversion rate would go up roughly 1000%, just a thought...
Dear Paul, if you posted the above type post (which really says mostly what you are saying too), your conversion rate would go up roughly 1000%, just a thought... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 17

10:25am Tue 15 Jul 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘courier46 says...
There are at least 5 that should now resign!’


The time for resignations was months ago when it was first raised that the camera fines were illegal.

The time is now for sackings for knowingly acting illegally in public office and attempting to hoodwink the public whom you work for!

This would ideally backed up with a public tarring and feathering at the Tyeburn.

Alexander, Merrit and Simply Wrong your time is up long before the May 2015 elections. I suggest you leave now while you still can!
‘courier46 says... There are at least 5 that should now resign!’ The time for resignations was months ago when it was first raised that the camera fines were illegal. The time is now for sackings for knowingly acting illegally in public office and attempting to hoodwink the public whom you work for! This would ideally backed up with a public tarring and feathering at the Tyeburn. Alexander, Merrit and Simply Wrong your time is up long before the May 2015 elections. I suggest you leave now while you still can! Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 31

10:57am Tue 15 Jul 14

Justin7 says...

When will the Press work out these comment sections are being hijacked. Last night, sensible posts were with 100+ positive votes. This morning, suddenly they are -500.
When will the Press work out these comment sections are being hijacked. Last night, sensible posts were with 100+ positive votes. This morning, suddenly they are -500. Justin7
  • Score: 17

11:00am Tue 15 Jul 14

seatothewest says...

Having recently experienced how horribly congested Lendal Bridge area is with traffic ON A SUNDAY! The Council were absolutely right to try and overcome selfishness of drivers in the city, and create a much greener environment for locals and tourists.
Having recently experienced how horribly congested Lendal Bridge area is with traffic ON A SUNDAY! The Council were absolutely right to try and overcome selfishness of drivers in the city, and create a much greener environment for locals and tourists. seatothewest
  • Score: -37

11:10am Tue 15 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Stick to the topic PP, your problem is that you expound car use, congestion and polution as a reason for restrictions to be put in place, its all an excuse for what you and your type really want i.e. a cycling utopia, you have no interest in the city just your own selfish attitude to those that dont agree with your way of thinking, now can we get back to the real issue and that is the council owe a lot of money to a lot of people!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Stick to the topic PP, your problem is that you expound car use, congestion and polution as a reason for restrictions to be put in place, its all an excuse for what you and your type really want i.e. a cycling utopia, you have no interest in the city just your own selfish attitude to those that dont agree with your way of thinking, now can we get back to the real issue and that is the council owe a lot of money to a lot of people!!!!! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 33

11:18am Tue 15 Jul 14

JasBro says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
No, we can't afford to indulge in political point scoring, and yet you continue to do so on a regular basis.

The policies you support have increased congestion and increased pollution. According to York's Local Transport Plans, that means more people are dying as a result of those policies.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]No, we can't afford to indulge in political point scoring, and yet you continue to do so on a regular basis. The policies you support have increased congestion and increased pollution. According to York's Local Transport Plans, that means more people are dying as a result of those policies. JasBro
  • Score: 35

12:04pm Tue 15 Jul 14

mutley12321 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Morning Paul,

Good to see you in such a good mood.

A few comments on your post.

Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure?

“The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you?

“A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful.

“The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame.

It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts?

Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate?

Regards,


Mutt.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Morning Paul, Good to see you in such a good mood. A few comments on your post. Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure? “The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you? “A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful. “The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame. It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts? Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate? Regards, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: 33

12:19pm Tue 15 Jul 14

wildthing666 says...

In a way the council are guily of fraud if they do not do the same for refunding the fines that they did in applying the fine. In that they got details of the owner from the DVLA and sent out the fine they must also IMO do this to refund the fines.
In a way the council are guily of fraud if they do not do the same for refunding the fines that they did in applying the fine. In that they got details of the owner from the DVLA and sent out the fine they must also IMO do this to refund the fines. wildthing666
  • Score: 11

12:23pm Tue 15 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

PP will always go off subject as he just like York council and many media organisations in this country are keen to keep the propaganda surrounding modal change (bullying people out of cars) at the forefront of everything. It is just his way of changing the subject to suit his dream of a car free cyclist paradise.

Back to the point though. Although this is a disaster for York in general keep in mind the council only actually received about half the fine money as it paid a huge sum for the administration of the fines. If it is to be paid back, which it looks like it should be, then we are going to have to find the money paid for this administration. On top of that I have no doubt that we will also have to pay for the administration of the refunds and judging by the councils record they will find the most expensive administrators in the land to do that.
By the time the council have finished with this, assuming they eventually pay back all the fines, dealing with the fines alone will have cost us York residents a minimum of £1.2m assuming they will pay the same extortionately high admin cost for each fine to be reimbursed. On top of that we will have all the legal fees to get to where we are and the cost of all the infrastructure changes which have taken place.
I would guess by the time they are finished they could have built us another bridge with our hard earned money instead using it to subject York residents to months of misery and hours of wasted time to achieve nothing but bad publicity and loss of business.
PP will always go off subject as he just like York council and many media organisations in this country are keen to keep the propaganda surrounding modal change (bullying people out of cars) at the forefront of everything. It is just his way of changing the subject to suit his dream of a car free cyclist paradise. Back to the point though. Although this is a disaster for York in general keep in mind the council only actually received about half the fine money as it paid a huge sum for the administration of the fines. If it is to be paid back, which it looks like it should be, then we are going to have to find the money paid for this administration. On top of that I have no doubt that we will also have to pay for the administration of the refunds and judging by the councils record they will find the most expensive administrators in the land to do that. By the time the council have finished with this, assuming they eventually pay back all the fines, dealing with the fines alone will have cost us York residents a minimum of £1.2m assuming they will pay the same extortionately high admin cost for each fine to be reimbursed. On top of that we will have all the legal fees to get to where we are and the cost of all the infrastructure changes which have taken place. I would guess by the time they are finished they could have built us another bridge with our hard earned money instead using it to subject York residents to months of misery and hours of wasted time to achieve nothing but bad publicity and loss of business. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 31

12:23pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Jackanory2 says...

RingoStarr wrote:
GMuser wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line.
Aw, come on GMuser, be kind and tolerant of someone who obviously suffers some serious 'special needs' problems and whose comments give many of us a hearty laugh.
Although I never agree with Paul, but to a certain extent he has a point. This is only a personal view and alot will disagree with me but I think they picked the wrong bridge to close during the day, it should have been ouse bridge from the turning on to skeldergate as far as the clifford street car park, also close Piccadilly from the turning by Red Lion pub, which would then make coppergate closed to all traffic during the day particularly buses.
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GMuser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line.[/p][/quote]Aw, come on GMuser, be kind and tolerant of someone who obviously suffers some serious 'special needs' problems and whose comments give many of us a hearty laugh.[/p][/quote]Although I never agree with Paul, but to a certain extent he has a point. This is only a personal view and alot will disagree with me but I think they picked the wrong bridge to close during the day, it should have been ouse bridge from the turning on to skeldergate as far as the clifford street car park, also close Piccadilly from the turning by Red Lion pub, which would then make coppergate closed to all traffic during the day particularly buses. Jackanory2
  • Score: -7

12:25pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

I would just like to say, we voted the parties in, they but leaders in and hopefully people in roles according to expertise, but they are only a mouth piece, Like school gangs bike clubs, Hobby Clubs, but the big difference is Political Parties of ALL kinds is, they get the power, then fail to understand the electorate. All need to learn the saying " PRIOR PREPARATION and PLANNING PREVENTS (P) POOR PERFORMANCE, this statement i believe is well known. can all leaders and sub leaders at least agree on that .
I would just like to say, we voted the parties in, they but leaders in and hopefully people in roles according to expertise, but they are only a mouth piece, Like school gangs bike clubs, Hobby Clubs, but the big difference is Political Parties of ALL kinds is, they get the power, then fail to understand the electorate. All need to learn the saying " PRIOR PREPARATION and PLANNING PREVENTS (P) POOR PERFORMANCE, this statement i believe is well known. can all leaders and sub leaders at least agree on that . Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 5

12:36pm Tue 15 Jul 14

bolero says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
I would just like to say, we voted the parties in, they but leaders in and hopefully people in roles according to expertise, but they are only a mouth piece, Like school gangs bike clubs, Hobby Clubs, but the big difference is Political Parties of ALL kinds is, they get the power, then fail to understand the electorate. All need to learn the saying " PRIOR PREPARATION and PLANNING PREVENTS (P) POOR PERFORMANCE, this statement i believe is well known. can all leaders and sub leaders at least agree on that .
A lot of PPs there and I don't like it.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I would just like to say, we voted the parties in, they but leaders in and hopefully people in roles according to expertise, but they are only a mouth piece, Like school gangs bike clubs, Hobby Clubs, but the big difference is Political Parties of ALL kinds is, they get the power, then fail to understand the electorate. All need to learn the saying " PRIOR PREPARATION and PLANNING PREVENTS (P) POOR PERFORMANCE, this statement i believe is well known. can all leaders and sub leaders at least agree on that .[/p][/quote]A lot of PPs there and I don't like it. bolero
  • Score: 16

12:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

york_chap says...

seatothewest wrote:
Having recently experienced how horribly congested Lendal Bridge area is with traffic ON A SUNDAY! The Council were absolutely right to try and overcome selfishness of drivers in the city, and create a much greener environment for locals and tourists.
Wow, you must have been really unlucky. Was it "ON A SUNDAY!" when the TdF was on or something?

I ended up doing more driving than usual into and around York this weekend (because I'm selfish like that); on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday, and each time I was left wondering where all the traffic had gone. (Don't worry folks; I'm not really selfish, I just live outside the bypass and didn't have the coins or the 30 - 40 minutes extra, required to use public transport).

On Saturday, bearing in mind the races were on, I got from the A1237, through the city centre and out to the suburbs on the opposite side in just over 15 minutes, with a similar journey on Sunday. At one point I actually wondered if I'd inadvertently stumbled into one of PP's nightmares and found myself in his fabled 'car users' paradise'. But alas, I then got stuck behind a hippy on a tricycle which reassured me that I hadn't.

I was also pleasantly surprised on Friday at 17:30 when there wasn't a single vehicle queuing at any approach to the A59 roundabout on the A1237. What is it they say on here - "Brilliant, love it, more please!".
[quote][p][bold]seatothewest[/bold] wrote: Having recently experienced how horribly congested Lendal Bridge area is with traffic ON A SUNDAY! The Council were absolutely right to try and overcome selfishness of drivers in the city, and create a much greener environment for locals and tourists.[/p][/quote]Wow, you must have been really unlucky. Was it "ON A SUNDAY!" when the TdF was on or something? I ended up doing more driving than usual into and around York this weekend (because I'm selfish like that); on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday, and each time I was left wondering where all the traffic had gone. (Don't worry folks; I'm not really selfish, I just live outside the bypass and didn't have the coins or the 30 - 40 minutes extra, required to use public transport). On Saturday, bearing in mind the races were on, I got from the A1237, through the city centre and out to the suburbs on the opposite side in just over 15 minutes, with a similar journey on Sunday. At one point I actually wondered if I'd inadvertently stumbled into one of PP's nightmares and found myself in his fabled 'car users' paradise'. But alas, I then got stuck behind a hippy on a tricycle which reassured me that I hadn't. I was also pleasantly surprised on Friday at 17:30 when there wasn't a single vehicle queuing at any approach to the A59 roundabout on the A1237. What is it they say on here - "Brilliant, love it, more please!". york_chap
  • Score: 22

12:58pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Original Homer is bang on understanding the PCNs/ fines, camera use, and the adjudicator's report; and also he is spot on on the way forward. P and R tariffs need to be lower as an incentive.

If you see the council's web page on traffic enforcement you will learn more. Bus lane is quoted which DfT told the council was wrong in an e-mail in August 2012!
Para 3 on the same page said in August 2013 the two prohibited motor vehicle schemes, which is what Coppergate and Lendal Br were, would have early signs giving prohibited motorists alternative routes to take to avoid passing illegally during prohibited times.
I told the council this a good while ago, but it is still there but now only quotes the Coppergate prohibited traffic scheme. PCNs are not currently issued on Coppergate.

On balance goodwill refunds for this trial should be for all those who paid. I know someone who ignored every letter with PCN and chase up letters because he knew they would not be agreed by a judge!

When are the council to re-tackle congestion etc with cross party commission/team; and by approaching knowledgable motorists who have balanced views?

Let' not forget the continuous message from the council for 13
months now - "IT'S NOT ABOUT COLLECTING REVENUE".
Original Homer is bang on understanding the PCNs/ fines, camera use, and the adjudicator's report; and also he is spot on on the way forward. P and R tariffs need to be lower as an incentive. If you see the council's web page on traffic enforcement you will learn more. Bus lane is quoted which DfT told the council was wrong in an e-mail in August 2012! Para 3 on the same page said in August 2013 the two prohibited motor vehicle schemes, which is what Coppergate and Lendal Br were, would have early signs giving prohibited motorists alternative routes to take to avoid passing illegally during prohibited times. I told the council this a good while ago, but it is still there but now only quotes the Coppergate prohibited traffic scheme. PCNs are not currently issued on Coppergate. On balance goodwill refunds for this trial should be for all those who paid. I know someone who ignored every letter with PCN and chase up letters because he knew they would not be agreed by a judge! When are the council to re-tackle congestion etc with cross party commission/team; and by approaching knowledgable motorists who have balanced views? Let' not forget the continuous message from the council for 13 months now - "IT'S NOT ABOUT COLLECTING REVENUE". Cheeky face
  • Score: 14

1:06pm Tue 15 Jul 14

York1900 says...

York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be

It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by
(1) stopping in the wrong place

(2) not sure of were they are going

(3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move

(4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue

You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York

It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road
York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road York1900
  • Score: -14

1:12pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

piaggio1 wrote:
An how about england chippin in a few bob. We all know your game lass...! Dont worry...it will ALL come out....
Yes, her game is about up...

The Chief Executive of bradford Council has resigned, aby guesses who will be applying for that job?

York needs a complete change at the top, the culture of this council has gone downhill over the past four years, with many senior officers being complicit in bringing the council into disrepute. We know who they are, and they must all go!
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: An how about england chippin in a few bob. We all know your game lass...! Dont worry...it will ALL come out....[/p][/quote]Yes, her game is about up... The Chief Executive of bradford Council has resigned, aby guesses who will be applying for that job? York needs a complete change at the top, the culture of this council has gone downhill over the past four years, with many senior officers being complicit in bringing the council into disrepute. We know who they are, and they must all go! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 18

1:57pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

bolero wrote:
Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.
This council is an utter disgrace, and needs a massive change of senior staff and culture.

Whoever wins control next May, needs to acknowledge the scale of the problem, vow to punish and remove any who have been guilty of being complicit in the crimes against democracy, and ensure that the council is run transparently.

The system of control, reporting and policy-making is broken, and most of York citizens do not trust the council. This must never ever be allowed to be repeated in the future, and a zero-tolerance regime against lying and cheating is a must!
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.[/p][/quote]This council is an utter disgrace, and needs a massive change of senior staff and culture. Whoever wins control next May, needs to acknowledge the scale of the problem, vow to punish and remove any who have been guilty of being complicit in the crimes against democracy, and ensure that the council is run transparently. The system of control, reporting and policy-making is broken, and most of York citizens do not trust the council. This must never ever be allowed to be repeated in the future, and a zero-tolerance regime against lying and cheating is a must! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 21

1:59pm Tue 15 Jul 14

chunkyyorkie says...

The CYC’s Lendal Bridge project can only be described as a huge success…………
…….providing the original intention was to:-
*Clog up the rest of the city’s streets and cause extra traffic congestion to thousands daily.
*Upset and annoy 60,00 people many who were visitors to our city with the hassle of a fine through their letter box. (In direct conflict and ruin all the work to the CYC department trying to attract visitors to the city).
*Waste a load of our money on the administration of the original project, a small budget on the signage, a large amount on the cameras, a huge amount on sending the fines out, a huge amount on the lawyers to question the government ruling, a huge amount on the refunding of the fines.
*Attract huge negative national publicity to focus the debacle of incompetence on York.
Well done on a stunning job....one of many these days it seems. Seems rather odd that a council has done nothing at all wrong yet has a desire to give back hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The CYC’s Lendal Bridge project can only be described as a huge success………… …….providing the original intention was to:- *Clog up the rest of the city’s streets and cause extra traffic congestion to thousands daily. *Upset and annoy 60,00 people many who were visitors to our city with the hassle of a fine through their letter box. (In direct conflict and ruin all the work to the CYC department trying to attract visitors to the city). *Waste a load of our money on the administration of the original project, a small budget on the signage, a large amount on the cameras, a huge amount on sending the fines out, a huge amount on the lawyers to question the government ruling, a huge amount on the refunding of the fines. *Attract huge negative national publicity to focus the debacle of incompetence on York. Well done on a stunning job....one of many these days it seems. Seems rather odd that a council has done nothing at all wrong yet has a desire to give back hundreds of thousands of pounds. chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 19

2:04pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
''Have your say in the comments facility below, but please refrain from personal abuse '' So the Press has finally clocked that it's comments threads are making a joke of the city's main news provider. Won't stop you all though, eh?
Wrong.

The comments reflect popular opinion, are honest and only found offensive by those who are trying to cover up the council's guilty parties/individuals/
policies.

The abuse by the council is the problem, not the criticism by those who comment on here against this abuse and those complicit in it.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: ''Have your say in the comments facility below, but please refrain from personal abuse '' So the Press has finally clocked that it's comments threads are making a joke of the city's main news provider. Won't stop you all though, eh?[/p][/quote]Wrong. The comments reflect popular opinion, are honest and only found offensive by those who are trying to cover up the council's guilty parties/individuals/ policies. The abuse by the council is the problem, not the criticism by those who comment on here against this abuse and those complicit in it. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 23

2:07pm Tue 15 Jul 14

m dee says...

seatothewest wrote:
Having recently experienced how horribly congested Lendal Bridge area is with traffic ON A SUNDAY! The Council were absolutely right to try and overcome selfishness of drivers in the city, and create a much greener environment for locals and tourists.
Yes on Sunday York gets a lot of day visitors spending in the City and enjoying the Historic buildings, do you think it wrong to hold on to the penalty charges many visitors received or auto refund ?
[quote][p][bold]seatothewest[/bold] wrote: Having recently experienced how horribly congested Lendal Bridge area is with traffic ON A SUNDAY! The Council were absolutely right to try and overcome selfishness of drivers in the city, and create a much greener environment for locals and tourists.[/p][/quote]Yes on Sunday York gets a lot of day visitors spending in the City and enjoying the Historic buildings, do you think it wrong to hold on to the penalty charges many visitors received or auto refund ? m dee
  • Score: 8

2:43pm Tue 15 Jul 14

York2000 says...

Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?
Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever? York2000
  • Score: -7

3:40pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

They are closing the bridge tomorrow for three hours; and will be providing signs or similar quoting alternative/diversio
n routes. This is just what they agreed to do by the info on their web site. Good time for the council to clearly obliterate the restricted access words painted on the entrances to the bridge which will wear off very quickly. But will they?

The majority of fines were people who, in the main, did not know where Lendal Bridge was and/or were confused with the AA signs which said restricted access, words are totally against the DfT provisions of the traffic regs 2002. Many could argue that visitors should be better equipped/advised with the council's offer than the locals; as locals had much mort advance knowledge of the trial.

Letters to the nationals are in order. Will the Press help?
They are closing the bridge tomorrow for three hours; and will be providing signs or similar quoting alternative/diversio n routes. This is just what they agreed to do by the info on their web site. Good time for the council to clearly obliterate the restricted access words painted on the entrances to the bridge which will wear off very quickly. But will they? The majority of fines were people who, in the main, did not know where Lendal Bridge was and/or were confused with the AA signs which said restricted access, words are totally against the DfT provisions of the traffic regs 2002. Many could argue that visitors should be better equipped/advised with the council's offer than the locals; as locals had much mort advance knowledge of the trial. Letters to the nationals are in order. Will the Press help? Cheeky face
  • Score: 9

3:44pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Ichabod76 says...

York2000 wrote:
Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?
Why don't you like people being able to have their say ?
Dose it not fit your lefty views ? Should we all just shut up and accept all of the councils failures with no comment ?

Do you ever write a comment other than to complain about other peoples opinions ?
If you think the council Officers and Councillors do such fantastic job why not stick up for them instead of just moaning ?
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?[/p][/quote]Why don't you like people being able to have their say ? Dose it not fit your lefty views ? Should we all just shut up and accept all of the councils failures with no comment ? Do you ever write a comment other than to complain about other peoples opinions ? If you think the council Officers and Councillors do such fantastic job why not stick up for them instead of just moaning ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 18

3:59pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?
Only if the Conservatives, LibDems, UKIP or Independents don't get a grip on the Labour party (officers) within the council. The culture needs a massive overhaul, by kicking out the politicised officers who have been as guilty as Alexander.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?[/p][/quote]Only if the Conservatives, LibDems, UKIP or Independents don't get a grip on the Labour party (officers) within the council. The culture needs a massive overhaul, by kicking out the politicised officers who have been as guilty as Alexander. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 18

4:10pm Tue 15 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

York1900 wrote:
York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road
This site is not about car usage, its about paying moneny back to the people who were fined, please stick to the point, if you and others including pp want to rave on about congestion and car usage, then please for heavens sake write another letter then we can all comment on that particular hot potatoe.
[quote][p][bold]York1900[/bold] wrote: York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road[/p][/quote]This site is not about car usage, its about paying moneny back to the people who were fined, please stick to the point, if you and others including pp want to rave on about congestion and car usage, then please for heavens sake write another letter then we can all comment on that particular hot potatoe. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 19

4:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

the commentator says...

chops, chips and eggs for tea, whatsay?
chops, chips and eggs for tea, whatsay? the commentator
  • Score: -2

4:46pm Tue 15 Jul 14

wilfor says...

Istead of closing Lendal bridge it should be made. Into a one way street as far as Blake street junction. Traffic could reach the railway station etc via Blake street, Davygate, Parliamentt street and High ousegate all one way.
Istead of closing Lendal bridge it should be made. Into a one way street as far as Blake street junction. Traffic could reach the railway station etc via Blake street, Davygate, Parliamentt street and High ousegate all one way. wilfor
  • Score: -8

4:55pm Tue 15 Jul 14

smudge2 says...

mutley12321 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Morning Paul,

Good to see you in such a good mood.

A few comments on your post.

Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure?

“The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you?

“A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful.

“The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame.

It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts?

Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate?

Regards,


Mutt.
Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Morning Paul, Good to see you in such a good mood. A few comments on your post. Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure? “The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you? “A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful. “The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame. It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts? Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..??? smudge2
  • Score: 20

5:30pm Tue 15 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

PP said in his latest propaganda post: -

"These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years."

Not true - once again PP makes himself look a little silly by not reading the council reports properly. The truth is: -

The volume of traffic stabilised in 2005. Mr Merrett took over as the chair on committees all things traffic in 2006 (under the Liberals). Since 2006 traffic volume has not risen but - pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% since Mr Merrett started to put in place the measures PP wrongly claims have stabilised traffic.

The only thing Mr Merrett and the council have achieved in York is more congestion and more pollution with the same amount of traffic and the measures introduced since 2006 are the cause of these increases.

PP also claims that these are simply Whitehall measures. They may have been under Labour but the are not now. The current government policy is to increase capacity on existing roads and that does not mean by bullying motorist off them it means by getting traffic flowing and allowing people to get to where they need to be. York council are still taking capacity out of exiting roads and adding pinch points, Boroughbridge Road being the latest example. Which can and is only leading to more congestion and pollution.
PP said in his latest propaganda post: - "These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years." Not true - once again PP makes himself look a little silly by not reading the council reports properly. The truth is: - The volume of traffic stabilised in 2005. Mr Merrett took over as the chair on committees all things traffic in 2006 (under the Liberals). Since 2006 traffic volume has not risen but - pollution in York has risen by as much as 48% since Mr Merrett started to put in place the measures PP wrongly claims have stabilised traffic. The only thing Mr Merrett and the council have achieved in York is more congestion and more pollution with the same amount of traffic and the measures introduced since 2006 are the cause of these increases. PP also claims that these are simply Whitehall measures. They may have been under Labour but the are not now. The current government policy is to increase capacity on existing roads and that does not mean by bullying motorist off them it means by getting traffic flowing and allowing people to get to where they need to be. York council are still taking capacity out of exiting roads and adding pinch points, Boroughbridge Road being the latest example. Which can and is only leading to more congestion and pollution. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 23

5:42pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Caecilius says...

Well, the "top lawyer" has certainly presented some convincing legal arguments there, firmly grounded in detailed and specific evidence. Not.

The fact that his own website modestly describes him as "the most famous solicitor practicing in the country today" should have told the Press something about him but apparently not. Among his triumphant successes in upholding natural justice are, apparently, getting a businessman off on a charge of drink-driving because the relevant blood sample had been taken by the surgeon who was performing an emergency operation on him after he crashed his car, rather than someone not "directly involved", and assisting a whole string of grubby 'celebs' to get off on obscure technicalities after being caught speeding. A fine, upstanding citizen.
Well, the "top lawyer" has certainly presented some convincing legal arguments there, firmly grounded in detailed and specific evidence. Not. The fact that his own website modestly describes him as "the most famous solicitor practicing in the country today" should have told the Press something about him but apparently not. Among his triumphant successes in upholding natural justice are, apparently, getting a businessman off on a charge of drink-driving because the relevant blood sample had been taken by the surgeon who was performing an emergency operation on him after he crashed his car, rather than someone not "directly involved", and assisting a whole string of grubby 'celebs' to get off on obscure technicalities after being caught speeding. A fine, upstanding citizen. Caecilius
  • Score: -14

7:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

bolero says...

Caecilius wrote:
Well, the "top lawyer" has certainly presented some convincing legal arguments there, firmly grounded in detailed and specific evidence. Not.

The fact that his own website modestly describes him as "the most famous solicitor practicing in the country today" should have told the Press something about him but apparently not. Among his triumphant successes in upholding natural justice are, apparently, getting a businessman off on a charge of drink-driving because the relevant blood sample had been taken by the surgeon who was performing an emergency operation on him after he crashed his car, rather than someone not "directly involved", and assisting a whole string of grubby 'celebs' to get off on obscure technicalities after being caught speeding. A fine, upstanding citizen.
Seems to fit the bill nicely.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: Well, the "top lawyer" has certainly presented some convincing legal arguments there, firmly grounded in detailed and specific evidence. Not. The fact that his own website modestly describes him as "the most famous solicitor practicing in the country today" should have told the Press something about him but apparently not. Among his triumphant successes in upholding natural justice are, apparently, getting a businessman off on a charge of drink-driving because the relevant blood sample had been taken by the surgeon who was performing an emergency operation on him after he crashed his car, rather than someone not "directly involved", and assisting a whole string of grubby 'celebs' to get off on obscure technicalities after being caught speeding. A fine, upstanding citizen.[/p][/quote]Seems to fit the bill nicely. bolero
  • Score: 2

7:42pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Loophole's views apart, the expert knowledge is from the traffic adjudicator; he/his colleagues are dealing with appeals all the time. Stephen Knapp's report said the CCTV used to instigate PCNs was wrong. It follows on then that Coppergate fines via the CCTV were also wrong.

The police were not totally happy when called to either location; and preferred to warn motorists rather fine them.

Coppers were occasionally called to "police" Coppergate following local businesses complaining. I worked in that street years ago and ocassionally had a friendly chat with the odd policeperson.

If the police collected moving traffic offences, at either site, then that is probably ok; but the promise on the web-site of the council to provide early signage so motorists could avoid the restricted areas; these being prohibition of motor vehicles schemes. The two sites were never bus lanes, but the council's web-site says they are!.
Loophole's views apart, the expert knowledge is from the traffic adjudicator; he/his colleagues are dealing with appeals all the time. Stephen Knapp's report said the CCTV used to instigate PCNs was wrong. It follows on then that Coppergate fines via the CCTV were also wrong. The police were not totally happy when called to either location; and preferred to warn motorists rather fine them. Coppers were occasionally called to "police" Coppergate following local businesses complaining. I worked in that street years ago and ocassionally had a friendly chat with the odd policeperson. If the police collected moving traffic offences, at either site, then that is probably ok; but the promise on the web-site of the council to provide early signage so motorists could avoid the restricted areas; these being prohibition of motor vehicles schemes. The two sites were never bus lanes, but the council's web-site says they are!. Cheeky face
  • Score: 4

8:34pm Tue 15 Jul 14

mutley12321 says...

Caecilius wrote:
Well, the "top lawyer" has certainly presented some convincing legal arguments there, firmly grounded in detailed and specific evidence. Not.

The fact that his own website modestly describes him as "the most famous solicitor practicing in the country today" should have told the Press something about him but apparently not. Among his triumphant successes in upholding natural justice are, apparently, getting a businessman off on a charge of drink-driving because the relevant blood sample had been taken by the surgeon who was performing an emergency operation on him after he crashed his car, rather than someone not "directly involved", and assisting a whole string of grubby 'celebs' to get off on obscure technicalities after being caught speeding. A fine, upstanding citizen.
Evening Caecilius

Hope you’re enjoying the fine weather.

You seem dismissive of the “top lawyer” (your quotes) and his opinion, but seem to have no legal opinion to provide of your own to refute his statements? Whilst you may find his job and his achieved outcomes distasteful, these are fairly irrelevant when it comes to laws and legal precedence etc etc etc.

I note the “top lawyer” raises questions himself on the legal advice received/requested/p
rovided by CYC. As you don’t care for much for his opinion, maybe you can chip in your two-penneth as a response as the council seem to prefer not to?

1 - “Very serious questions now need to be levelled at the council. The city’s tax payers have a right to know how much this fiasco has cost. Nothing less than a full investigation will suffice.

2 - “Furthermore, the council justifies its position by maintaining it has received affirmative legal advice. Who has provided this advice? May we see it? Will it sue those lawyers involved? And if not why not?

I like the idea of having a council that is willing to undertake a full investigation where clearly mistakes have been made, be totally transparent and show their accountable to the residents, don't you?

Enjoy the weather,

Regards,


Mutt.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: Well, the "top lawyer" has certainly presented some convincing legal arguments there, firmly grounded in detailed and specific evidence. Not. The fact that his own website modestly describes him as "the most famous solicitor practicing in the country today" should have told the Press something about him but apparently not. Among his triumphant successes in upholding natural justice are, apparently, getting a businessman off on a charge of drink-driving because the relevant blood sample had been taken by the surgeon who was performing an emergency operation on him after he crashed his car, rather than someone not "directly involved", and assisting a whole string of grubby 'celebs' to get off on obscure technicalities after being caught speeding. A fine, upstanding citizen.[/p][/quote]Evening Caecilius Hope you’re enjoying the fine weather. You seem dismissive of the “top lawyer” (your quotes) and his opinion, but seem to have no legal opinion to provide of your own to refute his statements? Whilst you may find his job and his achieved outcomes distasteful, these are fairly irrelevant when it comes to laws and legal precedence etc etc etc. I note the “top lawyer” raises questions himself on the legal advice received/requested/p rovided by CYC. As you don’t care for much for his opinion, maybe you can chip in your two-penneth as a response as the council seem to prefer not to? 1 - “Very serious questions now need to be levelled at the council. The city’s tax payers have a right to know how much this fiasco has cost. Nothing less than a full investigation will suffice. 2 - “Furthermore, the council justifies its position by maintaining it has received affirmative legal advice. Who has provided this advice? May we see it? Will it sue those lawyers involved? And if not why not? I like the idea of having a council that is willing to undertake a full investigation where clearly mistakes have been made, be totally transparent and show their accountable to the residents, don't you? Enjoy the weather, Regards, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: 9

8:57pm Tue 15 Jul 14

York1900 says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
York1900 wrote:
York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road
This site is not about car usage, its about paying moneny back to the people who were fined, please stick to the point, if you and others including pp want to rave on about congestion and car usage, then please for heavens sake write another letter then we can all comment on that particular hot potatoe.
York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road

Because the council can not do it properly and find themselves having to pay back PNCs because they do not understand the law and those who are supposed to check the there plans are legal do not do proper checks it just seems to me that the whole council seem to be operating to there own agendas to stuff the City up it goes from councillors to the day to day management team of the city
Not one of them seem to be accountable
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York1900[/bold] wrote: York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road[/p][/quote]This site is not about car usage, its about paying moneny back to the people who were fined, please stick to the point, if you and others including pp want to rave on about congestion and car usage, then please for heavens sake write another letter then we can all comment on that particular hot potatoe.[/p][/quote]York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road Because the council can not do it properly and find themselves having to pay back PNCs because they do not understand the law and those who are supposed to check the there plans are legal do not do proper checks it just seems to me that the whole council seem to be operating to there own agendas to stuff the City up it goes from councillors to the day to day management team of the city Not one of them seem to be accountable York1900
  • Score: 3

9:33pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Paul Hepworth says...

smudge2 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Morning Paul,

Good to see you in such a good mood.

A few comments on your post.

Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure?

“The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you?

“A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful.

“The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame.

It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts?

Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate?

Regards,


Mutt.
Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???
Oh dearie me. Confusion seems to be reigning again. But it's been very interesting to sit back and watch the comments grow today.
I seem to remember a well known Councillor pleading at a Committee meeting a few years ago, that "traffic must flow". Does that mean that CoYC has to try and cater ad infinitum for whatever level of demand exists? Is that practicable, and for how few years would benefits accrue? The answer is until more induced traffic kicks in and create even bigger jams.
As PP has said before now, the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow. But of course many contributors to this thread are fiddling while Rome prepares to burn.
York's official transport policy is revealed at http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200230/ltp3/
319/ltp3
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Morning Paul, Good to see you in such a good mood. A few comments on your post. Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure? “The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you? “A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful. “The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame. It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts? Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???[/p][/quote]Oh dearie me. Confusion seems to be reigning again. But it's been very interesting to sit back and watch the comments grow today. I seem to remember a well known Councillor pleading at a Committee meeting a few years ago, that "traffic must flow". Does that mean that CoYC has to try and cater ad infinitum for whatever level of demand exists? Is that practicable, and for how few years would benefits accrue? The answer is until more induced traffic kicks in and create even bigger jams. As PP has said before now, the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow. But of course many contributors to this thread are fiddling while Rome prepares to burn. York's official transport policy is revealed at http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 Paul Hepworth
  • Score: -13

9:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

mutley12321 says...

Paul Hepworth wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Morning Paul,

Good to see you in such a good mood.

A few comments on your post.

Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure?

“The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you?

“A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful.

“The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame.

It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts?

Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate?

Regards,


Mutt.
Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???
Oh dearie me. Confusion seems to be reigning again. But it's been very interesting to sit back and watch the comments grow today.
I seem to remember a well known Councillor pleading at a Committee meeting a few years ago, that "traffic must flow". Does that mean that CoYC has to try and cater ad infinitum for whatever level of demand exists? Is that practicable, and for how few years would benefits accrue? The answer is until more induced traffic kicks in and create even bigger jams.
As PP has said before now, the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow. But of course many contributors to this thread are fiddling while Rome prepares to burn.
York's official transport policy is revealed at http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200230/ltp3/

319/ltp3
Evening Paul.

Avoiding giving straight answers, dodging and evading without ever giving a meaningful opinion and the full response asked of you?

Anyone would think you're a politician?

Regards,

Mutt.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Morning Paul, Good to see you in such a good mood. A few comments on your post. Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure? “The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you? “A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful. “The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame. It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts? Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???[/p][/quote]Oh dearie me. Confusion seems to be reigning again. But it's been very interesting to sit back and watch the comments grow today. I seem to remember a well known Councillor pleading at a Committee meeting a few years ago, that "traffic must flow". Does that mean that CoYC has to try and cater ad infinitum for whatever level of demand exists? Is that practicable, and for how few years would benefits accrue? The answer is until more induced traffic kicks in and create even bigger jams. As PP has said before now, the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow. But of course many contributors to this thread are fiddling while Rome prepares to burn. York's official transport policy is revealed at http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3[/p][/quote]Evening Paul. Avoiding giving straight answers, dodging and evading without ever giving a meaningful opinion and the full response asked of you? Anyone would think you're a politician? Regards, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: 11

10:14pm Tue 15 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

The only thing that is burning in York is the back of peoples throats as they gulp in the 48% increase in pollution created by Mr Merrett's anti car measures.
I wonder if the puppet master is working PP as well?
The only thing that is burning in York is the back of peoples throats as they gulp in the 48% increase in pollution created by Mr Merrett's anti car measures. I wonder if the puppet master is working PP as well? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 8

10:18pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Happy Chappie says...

In order that as many of the visitors as possible from far and wide that where illegally fined get to know the repayment. I am, where possible, broadcasting it on the social media sites that can be read nationwide and asking others to do the same...Make em pay.
In order that as many of the visitors as possible from far and wide that where illegally fined get to know the repayment. I am, where possible, broadcasting it on the social media sites that can be read nationwide and asking others to do the same...Make em pay. Happy Chappie
  • Score: 5

10:20pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Dogwithabone says...

Never mind the politics or "money chasing lawyer" comments. The bottom line is York is a tourist city and rely heavily on visitors having a good time, returning to the city, spending money (and paying wages) and telling friends what a great place this is to visit.
This nightmare fine MUST have upset 1000's of people and it is only right that their money is refunded. I am sure the refunds will not completely repair the damage that this badly executed traffic fine caused, but at least it is something.
Just a shame the rate payers will be picking up the bulk of the cost rather than the council officers that set this up.
Never mind the politics or "money chasing lawyer" comments. The bottom line is York is a tourist city and rely heavily on visitors having a good time, returning to the city, spending money (and paying wages) and telling friends what a great place this is to visit. This nightmare fine MUST have upset 1000's of people and it is only right that their money is refunded. I am sure the refunds will not completely repair the damage that this badly executed traffic fine caused, but at least it is something. Just a shame the rate payers will be picking up the bulk of the cost rather than the council officers that set this up. Dogwithabone
  • Score: 8

10:26pm Tue 15 Jul 14

bolero says...

Happy Chappie wrote:
In order that as many of the visitors as possible from far and wide that where illegally fined get to know the repayment. I am, where possible, broadcasting it on the social media sites that can be read nationwide and asking others to do the same...Make em pay.
Thanks very much. Who do you think 'em are? We the taxpayers will be the ones to bear the cost. The money should come from 'em who implemented this fiasco.
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chappie[/bold] wrote: In order that as many of the visitors as possible from far and wide that where illegally fined get to know the repayment. I am, where possible, broadcasting it on the social media sites that can be read nationwide and asking others to do the same...Make em pay.[/p][/quote]Thanks very much. Who do you think 'em are? We the taxpayers will be the ones to bear the cost. The money should come from 'em who implemented this fiasco. bolero
  • Score: 4

10:31pm Tue 15 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Paul Hepworth wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Morning Paul,

Good to see you in such a good mood.

A few comments on your post.

Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure?

“The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you?

“A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful.

“The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame.

It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts?

Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate?

Regards,


Mutt.
Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???
Oh dearie me. Confusion seems to be reigning again. But it's been very interesting to sit back and watch the comments grow today.
I seem to remember a well known Councillor pleading at a Committee meeting a few years ago, that "traffic must flow". Does that mean that CoYC has to try and cater ad infinitum for whatever level of demand exists? Is that practicable, and for how few years would benefits accrue? The answer is until more induced traffic kicks in and create even bigger jams.
As PP has said before now, the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow. But of course many contributors to this thread are fiddling while Rome prepares to burn.
York's official transport policy is revealed at http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200230/ltp3/

319/ltp3
Part of the comment that PP posing as PH said ............. the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow............
.
What PP posing as PH really means is that the restrictive measures that the council have put in place cause bigger jams today where there were no jams yesterday!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Morning Paul, Good to see you in such a good mood. A few comments on your post. Which “long term threat” did the Lendal Bridge failure try to address? Simply closing a major route through the City Centre, forcing traffic elsewhere (Clifton Green, Water Lane, Fishergate etc) was never going to be an effective measure? “The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections”. That Sir, is a good point. Although rather than blame Whitehall, (which all local politicians attempt then their own policies are a disastrous failure as this one); perhaps you should be directing your vitriol to your own local paymasters in West Offices? Or, perhaps you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you? “A recent article featured……… presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV”. Any proof of this? Or are you just continuing with your anti-car hyperbole? What’s it to you what car people drive? Jealousy is a virtue of the fickle. In the past Paul, I would have suggested this remark below even you, however your recent postings suggest your bitterness towards individuals making an informed choice which goes against your own opinion fairly shameful. “The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation”. Correct, it’s a shame this is nothing more the Labour spin, which fails to address that this should have been attempted in the past. This clearly is nothing more than an attempt to try to share the blame. It’s recognised that your comments fail to address the key crux of the article, that incorrectly levied fines should be repaid. I myself are distinctly uncomfortable that visitors may not be aware that a refund is due, and there are no pro-active measures being taken to ensure funds are correctly repatriated. What are your thoughts? Paul, I have asked you in the past your own involvement in the Lendal Bridge trial/fiasco, whatever you wish to call it. Care to step up to the plate? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Mr Paul Hepworth will not step up to the plate as it is his intention to upset as many York residents as possible to satisfy his own views that now he has dug his hole he is unable to pedal out of it .He is very well known to myself and his colleagues as the Pedalling P**t !!! but refuses to believe he is wrong .. The only thing that feeds him are the York residents replying to his increasingly extreme wind ups..???[/p][/quote]Oh dearie me. Confusion seems to be reigning again. But it's been very interesting to sit back and watch the comments grow today. I seem to remember a well known Councillor pleading at a Committee meeting a few years ago, that "traffic must flow". Does that mean that CoYC has to try and cater ad infinitum for whatever level of demand exists? Is that practicable, and for how few years would benefits accrue? The answer is until more induced traffic kicks in and create even bigger jams. As PP has said before now, the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow. But of course many contributors to this thread are fiddling while Rome prepares to burn. York's official transport policy is revealed at http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3[/p][/quote]Part of the comment that PP posing as PH said ............. the end result will simply be be bigger jams tomorrow instead of jam tomorrow............ . What PP posing as PH really means is that the restrictive measures that the council have put in place cause bigger jams today where there were no jams yesterday! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 8

10:37pm Tue 15 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bolero wrote:
Happy Chappie wrote:
In order that as many of the visitors as possible from far and wide that where illegally fined get to know the repayment. I am, where possible, broadcasting it on the social media sites that can be read nationwide and asking others to do the same...Make em pay.
Thanks very much. Who do you think 'em are? We the taxpayers will be the ones to bear the cost. The money should come from 'em who implemented this fiasco.
Unfortunately that won't be the case, we will have to pay for it in cuts in services and dare I say higher council tax?, still the more that get to know of the refund the better as it is morally wrong not to reimburse them.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happy Chappie[/bold] wrote: In order that as many of the visitors as possible from far and wide that where illegally fined get to know the repayment. I am, where possible, broadcasting it on the social media sites that can be read nationwide and asking others to do the same...Make em pay.[/p][/quote]Thanks very much. Who do you think 'em are? We the taxpayers will be the ones to bear the cost. The money should come from 'em who implemented this fiasco.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately that won't be the case, we will have to pay for it in cuts in services and dare I say higher council tax?, still the more that get to know of the refund the better as it is morally wrong not to reimburse them. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 4

10:57pm Tue 15 Jul 14

may2015 says...

York2000 wrote:
Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?
I think we'll all be more inquiring and vigilant of whatever gang is next. Both before and after the election.

Just hope this makes it harder for those with agendas and superiority complexes to rise to the top. Once bitten...
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Badgers Drift - You do realise that if the council are voted out in 2015, then the comments threads will be filled with this kins of ranting, but about the Conservatives or LibDems or whoever?[/p][/quote]I think we'll all be more inquiring and vigilant of whatever gang is next. Both before and after the election. Just hope this makes it harder for those with agendas and superiority complexes to rise to the top. Once bitten... may2015
  • Score: 6

12:10am Wed 16 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

Jiminy Cricket wrote:
bolero wrote:
Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.
Councillors will be judged at the ballot box (not soon enough for some) but we will still be left with officers who are incompetent and/or corrupt. How do we get rid of them?
Thing is the councillors only try to direct the scriptwriters and perform their play - similar to central government. It doesn't change much replacing the Actors because the replacements will still follow the same scriptwriters score and play.

It's the poor quality scriptwriters and incompetent "functionaires" that must be "let go" to end the incompetance - for at present they will still call the tune whichever administration leads the council.
[quote][p][bold]Jiminy Cricket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Surely this council has to be investigated in regard to their now proven total incompetence, maladministration and squandering public funds. Individuals must be called to account and the cost of this fiasco has to be made public and quickly. We can't afford to wait until next May to oust this lot because they are only going to continue to waste taxpayers money. They know that they are doomed and because of their sheer bloodymindedness they will go all out to accomplish their hare brained schemes regardless of the cost and the aftermath that we face.[/p][/quote]Councillors will be judged at the ballot box (not soon enough for some) but we will still be left with officers who are incompetent and/or corrupt. How do we get rid of them?[/p][/quote]Thing is the councillors only try to direct the scriptwriters and perform their play - similar to central government. It doesn't change much replacing the Actors because the replacements will still follow the same scriptwriters score and play. It's the poor quality scriptwriters and incompetent "functionaires" that must be "let go" to end the incompetance - for at present they will still call the tune whichever administration leads the council. KevinWard59
  • Score: 5

3:19am Wed 16 Jul 14

Bad magic says...

the original Homer wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
There are actually some sensible bits in PP's post.

However, car drivers are probably the biggest group of urban road users, so Paul's "car user's paradise" phrase will always get him more enemies than friends.

Most of us car drivers can see that peak time traffic delays need a solution, and that the solution may well involve restricting some users for the benefit of others. Of course, we are all selfish and want the benefit personally without the pain personally, but that's human nature.

The problem is not easy to solve, and piecemeal patches such as bridge closures, cycle lanes, and bus lanes don't tend to hep. Typically, they have a small benefit in the immediate area and a bigger negative effect somewhere else, either by displacing traffic or by creating a pinch-point.

There is a basic principle to recognise - you can't change car drivers' habits by using force, they have to be persuaded by better alternatives.

Park and Ride may not suit everybody, but good signage would get more visitors using it and that would help.

The biggest benefit to traffic though would be getting regular commuters and shoppers to use P&R. Before anyone shoots that down, I know it would't work for many people, but I'm sure there are a significant number it could work for (and that would reduce traffic for those who can't use P&R).

I'd like to see a trial done with a flat £1 return fare, or even free. It only needs to be tried for a few weeks, and maybe even only selected days and/or selected times. That must be easier and cheaper than changing the infrastructure, and could have a very big effect very quickly. It needs somebody to do the sums and somebody to work out how it would work for the bus company.

I commute and park near the centre every day. P&R would be slightly slower for me, but I'd put up with that if the price was right. I know many others with similar views, and all our cars are currently in those queues twice a day. Some of us have experimented with car sharing,and with walking, cycling and P&R. Of those, P&R was the only one we'd use regularly, but we all chose not to because of the cost. We aren't a huge cross-section of all the car drivers out there, but I bet there are many others like us. Incentivise us financially and we'll keep our cars out of the City.
Possibly the single most sensible and mature thing I have ever heard on this subject. Well said, mate.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]There are actually some sensible bits in PP's post. However, car drivers are probably the biggest group of urban road users, so Paul's "car user's paradise" phrase will always get him more enemies than friends. Most of us car drivers can see that peak time traffic delays need a solution, and that the solution may well involve restricting some users for the benefit of others. Of course, we are all selfish and want the benefit personally without the pain personally, but that's human nature. The problem is not easy to solve, and piecemeal patches such as bridge closures, cycle lanes, and bus lanes don't tend to hep. Typically, they have a small benefit in the immediate area and a bigger negative effect somewhere else, either by displacing traffic or by creating a pinch-point. There is a basic principle to recognise - you can't change car drivers' habits by using force, they have to be persuaded by better alternatives. Park and Ride may not suit everybody, but good signage would get more visitors using it and that would help. The biggest benefit to traffic though would be getting regular commuters and shoppers to use P&R. Before anyone shoots that down, I know it would't work for many people, but I'm sure there are a significant number it could work for (and that would reduce traffic for those who can't use P&R). I'd like to see a trial done with a flat £1 return fare, or even free. It only needs to be tried for a few weeks, and maybe even only selected days and/or selected times. That must be easier and cheaper than changing the infrastructure, and could have a very big effect very quickly. It needs somebody to do the sums and somebody to work out how it would work for the bus company. I commute and park near the centre every day. P&R would be slightly slower for me, but I'd put up with that if the price was right. I know many others with similar views, and all our cars are currently in those queues twice a day. Some of us have experimented with car sharing,and with walking, cycling and P&R. Of those, P&R was the only one we'd use regularly, but we all chose not to because of the cost. We aren't a huge cross-section of all the car drivers out there, but I bet there are many others like us. Incentivise us financially and we'll keep our cars out of the City.[/p][/quote]Possibly the single most sensible and mature thing I have ever heard on this subject. Well said, mate. Bad magic
  • Score: 5

8:37am Wed 16 Jul 14

pedalling paul says...

AAAhhh.....at last, some input to the wider debate.
AAAhhh.....at last, some input to the wider debate. pedalling paul
  • Score: -9

10:00am Wed 16 Jul 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

pedalling paul wrote:
AAAhhh.....at last, some input to the wider debate.
Debate - a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

Just so you know, I think your dictionary must be broken...
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: AAAhhh.....at last, some input to the wider debate.[/p][/quote]Debate - a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints Just so you know, I think your dictionary must be broken... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 5

11:49am Wed 16 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
AAAhhh.....at last, some input to the wider debate.
To Paul Hepworth AKA pedalling paul:

We all know that you love stirring the SH1T just like a child who has found something annoying, and it was you who side tracked the original comments with your inane obsession and rhetoric about car usage, congestion and cycling.

The comments on here are suposed to be about the councils duty to reimburse all those who fell foul of the Lendal Bridge restrictions.

If you want a discussion about car usage, congestion and cycling then for heavens sake write another letter so that we can all comment on that hot potatoe.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: AAAhhh.....at last, some input to the wider debate.[/p][/quote]To Paul Hepworth AKA pedalling paul: We all know that you love stirring the SH1T just like a child who has found something annoying, and it was you who side tracked the original comments with your inane obsession and rhetoric about car usage, congestion and cycling. The comments on here are suposed to be about the councils duty to reimburse all those who fell foul of the Lendal Bridge restrictions. If you want a discussion about car usage, congestion and cycling then for heavens sake write another letter so that we can all comment on that hot potatoe. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 9

12:47pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Some national park and rides are tariffed by the groups in a car parked at the P and R. So in York,s case 3 family members would not the full price times 3. It may be too complex for the council to arrange.

Lots for the council to do on this as well as doong the sensible thing and offer refunds to all. What about returning the grant money, which is another issue, but still an important one.
Some national park and rides are tariffed by the groups in a car parked at the P and R. So in York,s case 3 family members would not the full price times 3. It may be too complex for the council to arrange. Lots for the council to do on this as well as doong the sensible thing and offer refunds to all. What about returning the grant money, which is another issue, but still an important one. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1

2:44pm Wed 16 Jul 14

meme says...

The big issue as far as I am concerned is what is the cost to the York ratepayer going to be due to this fiasco.
Its not right to hold monies due back to others BUT CoYC have overspent on HQ etc and don't have the money. Ignore the fines refund issues and look at the money lost through this 'trial' which I believe is circa £600,000
Christ if I cocked up like this I would lose my job but its not looked at as real money; after all we fund it..... they spend it and if they lose it so what!
CoYC cannot seem to get anything right at the moment from projects to FOI act enquiries to complaints and its time to have a change Lets hope York citizens recognise that at the local elections
The big issue as far as I am concerned is what is the cost to the York ratepayer going to be due to this fiasco. Its not right to hold monies due back to others BUT CoYC have overspent on HQ etc and don't have the money. Ignore the fines refund issues and look at the money lost through this 'trial' which I believe is circa £600,000 Christ if I cocked up like this I would lose my job but its not looked at as real money; after all we fund it..... they spend it and if they lose it so what! CoYC cannot seem to get anything right at the moment from projects to FOI act enquiries to complaints and its time to have a change Lets hope York citizens recognise that at the local elections meme
  • Score: 6

5:00pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Meme, Quite right. What do the government team who contributed to this fiasco think of it.

The correct gesture is full refunds with City of York council tax payers money funding same.

It cost a small amount of profit to the Northampton firm as a profit to them. Let's say the same amount at least to do the job right. Then there is the legal advice which is probably contestable by the council. It will run til the next World Cup.

I can hear a toddler's first words in 2066 "Was Lendal Br a national disaster daddy?".
Daddy's reply: "No Son, but it took up just as much media time! I'll explain why solicitor's are on £250.000 an hour next week!"
Meme, Quite right. What do the government team who contributed to this fiasco think of it. The correct gesture is full refunds with City of York council tax payers money funding same. It cost a small amount of profit to the Northampton firm as a profit to them. Let's say the same amount at least to do the job right. Then there is the legal advice which is probably contestable by the council. It will run til the next World Cup. I can hear a toddler's first words in 2066 "Was Lendal Br a national disaster daddy?". Daddy's reply: "No Son, but it took up just as much media time! I'll explain why solicitor's are on £250.000 an hour next week!" Cheeky face
  • Score: -2

5:26pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Meirion M says...

GMuser wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address.

If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys.

The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections.

These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy.

A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit.

The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.
Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP.
Everyone is bored with your same old story line.
Yes, shut up PP, you bore.
[quote][p][bold]GMuser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Time for you to all get your heads out of the sand, and acknowledge the very real long term threat that hangs over us, which the Lendal bridge trial courageously tried to address. If those residents who need to use motor vehicles at peak travel times, are to be able to continue to do so, then we must continue to encourage modal shift for many other local journeys. The transport policy measures which York has taken in the past decades have been driven by a succession of Whitehall initiatives, and embraced locally by some politicians who have the rare ability to see beyond the next elections. These measures have helped to stabilise peak car use in recent years. However York's third Local Transport Plan recognises that this will not be enough, in the light of anticipated future demographic and employment changes. Hence it's overarching goal is for further reductions in private car dependancy. A recent article featured a Bishopthorpe resident who daily ferries her offspring to school in Bootham, presumably in a petrol guzzling SUV. Car-dependant lifestyle decisions like this are directly responsible for much of York's travel woes. Try living within walking and cycling distance of school, and encourage your kids to get there under their own steam. We'd all benefit. The planned Congestion Commission must meet in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Time is not on our side. We can't afford to indulge in political point scoring. and listen to promises of a car user's paradise which will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Paul give it a rest..... do York residents a favour and SHUT UP. Everyone is bored with your same old story line.[/p][/quote]Yes, shut up PP, you bore. Meirion M
  • Score: 8

5:30pm Wed 16 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

meme wrote:
The big issue as far as I am concerned is what is the cost to the York ratepayer going to be due to this fiasco.
Its not right to hold monies due back to others BUT CoYC have overspent on HQ etc and don't have the money. Ignore the fines refund issues and look at the money lost through this 'trial' which I believe is circa £600,000
Christ if I cocked up like this I would lose my job but its not looked at as real money; after all we fund it..... they spend it and if they lose it so what!
CoYC cannot seem to get anything right at the moment from projects to FOI act enquiries to complaints and its time to have a change Lets hope York citizens recognise that at the local elections
The only way to get rid of these incompetent officials is to vote for one of the major parties i.e. Cons or Libs, I voted UKIP in the European elections as a protest, but I will vote tactically in the May elections, it's not what a lot of voters will like doing, but it's the only way to guarantee they will not get a second term.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: The big issue as far as I am concerned is what is the cost to the York ratepayer going to be due to this fiasco. Its not right to hold monies due back to others BUT CoYC have overspent on HQ etc and don't have the money. Ignore the fines refund issues and look at the money lost through this 'trial' which I believe is circa £600,000 Christ if I cocked up like this I would lose my job but its not looked at as real money; after all we fund it..... they spend it and if they lose it so what! CoYC cannot seem to get anything right at the moment from projects to FOI act enquiries to complaints and its time to have a change Lets hope York citizens recognise that at the local elections[/p][/quote]The only way to get rid of these incompetent officials is to vote for one of the major parties i.e. Cons or Libs, I voted UKIP in the European elections as a protest, but I will vote tactically in the May elections, it's not what a lot of voters will like doing, but it's the only way to guarantee they will not get a second term. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 3

6:33pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nowthen says...

Tomorrows Council meeting should be interesting ; http://yorklibdems.o
rg.uk/en/article/201
4/871843/lendal-brid
ge-councillors-face-
crunch-vote
Tomorrows Council meeting should be interesting ; http://yorklibdems.o rg.uk/en/article/201 4/871843/lendal-brid ge-councillors-face- crunch-vote nowthen
  • Score: 2

11:47pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jake777 says...

York1900 wrote:
York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be

It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by
(1) stopping in the wrong place

(2) not sure of were they are going

(3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move

(4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue

You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York

It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road
SPOT ON, YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
[quote][p][bold]York1900[/bold] wrote: York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road[/p][/quote]SPOT ON, YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. jake777
  • Score: -6

12:47pm Thu 17 Jul 14

york_chap says...

York1900 wrote:
York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be

It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by
(1) stopping in the wrong place

(2) not sure of were they are going

(3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move

(4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue

You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York

It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road
To say York is "dyeing" (sic) under the pressure of the motor car is somewhat melodramatic, however your point about box junctions does certainly have some merit. I know I've seen the one at the Bootham/ Gillygate intersection blocked by vehicles on numerous occasions, as well as the one at the end of Leeman Road - buses seem to be particular offenders there. CCTV monitoring would be ideal in such locations, like some other cities have - though given CoYC's record with such practices, I suppose it might be best for all concerned to just put up with the problem.

As to people being unsure of where they're going and using empty lanes at junctions to cut in etc, these practices are indeed frustrating but don't really cause traffic "chaos".

At the junctions where 'queue-jumping' frequently happens, maybe the council should be looking at the road layout and lane priorities - people generally only fly down the wrong lane if it's sitting empty, next to a long queue in the adjacent lane. If both lanes were used efficiently, the overall queue would be 50% shorter and there'd be no benefit to people cutting in.
[quote][p][bold]York1900[/bold] wrote: York is dyeing under the pressure of the motor car as most of the roads are not designed for the amount of cars on the road and as long as car drivers can not see alternative routes or modes of getting to were they want to be It only takes 1 or 2 drivers to cause traffic chaos in York by (1) stopping in the wrong place (2) not sure of were they are going (3) pushing in to yellow box at road junctions so the traffic from the other direction can not move (4) those who cut in at traffic lights by using the wrong lane to get to the front of the queue You can see these drivers every day in York who cause the pain for all road users in York It will make no difference till there is proper road enforcement in place and it is put back under the control of the police and the bad drivers taken off the road[/p][/quote]To say York is "dyeing" (sic) under the pressure of the motor car is somewhat melodramatic, however your point about box junctions does certainly have some merit. I know I've seen the one at the Bootham/ Gillygate intersection blocked by vehicles on numerous occasions, as well as the one at the end of Leeman Road - buses seem to be particular offenders there. CCTV monitoring would be ideal in such locations, like some other cities have - though given CoYC's record with such practices, I suppose it might be best for all concerned to just put up with the problem. As to people being unsure of where they're going and using empty lanes at junctions to cut in etc, these practices are indeed frustrating but don't really cause traffic "chaos". At the junctions where 'queue-jumping' frequently happens, maybe the council should be looking at the road layout and lane priorities - people generally only fly down the wrong lane if it's sitting empty, next to a long queue in the adjacent lane. If both lanes were used efficiently, the overall queue would be 50% shorter and there'd be no benefit to people cutting in. york_chap
  • Score: 3

3:51pm Thu 17 Jul 14

chunkyyorkie says...

Yep a city where the council complain constantly of the need to address congestion seems rather stupid. If, as they do in many cities, the bus lane's were only bus lanes Mon -Sat 7-9am and 4-6pm then traffic would have miles of road space available than it has now. Outside rush hours congestion is not such a big problem in York, no where near as bad as they say and there are many other cities a lot worse from experience.

Buses blocking roads at bus stops and others behind signalling right with no intention of passing are typical tactics to stop cars moving in York. How many times a day do we see a big queue behind a bus stop only to look beyond and see clear roads?
Yep a city where the council complain constantly of the need to address congestion seems rather stupid. If, as they do in many cities, the bus lane's were only bus lanes Mon -Sat 7-9am and 4-6pm then traffic would have miles of road space available than it has now. Outside rush hours congestion is not such a big problem in York, no where near as bad as they say and there are many other cities a lot worse from experience. Buses blocking roads at bus stops and others behind signalling right with no intention of passing are typical tactics to stop cars moving in York. How many times a day do we see a big queue behind a bus stop only to look beyond and see clear roads? chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 3

7:41am Fri 18 Jul 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

so the council meeting has taken place and this pair of incompetents have remained. It would not have been the case had more members of the public been included in the voting process. As I see it some labour counselors are leaving the sinking ship and others are hanging in the hope they may retain whatever vestiges of a role they have left.
so the council meeting has taken place and this pair of incompetents have remained. It would not have been the case had more members of the public been included in the voting process. As I see it some labour counselors are leaving the sinking ship and others are hanging in the hope they may retain whatever vestiges of a role they have left. thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Fri 18 Jul 14

meme says...

Just switch off the traffic lights and we would all be better off in terms of flowing vehicles
Just switch off the traffic lights and we would all be better off in terms of flowing vehicles meme
  • Score: 2

1:41pm Fri 18 Jul 14

meme says...

I wonder if a FOI request asking what the total cost of this failed closure and fine repayments is would get a satisfactory answer?
Would it be considered ''vexatious'' or ''commercially sensitive'' as per Mr Hamill's requests and not answered as the real answer would be too embarrassing to those in power?
I wonder if a FOI request asking what the total cost of this failed closure and fine repayments is would get a satisfactory answer? Would it be considered ''vexatious'' or ''commercially sensitive'' as per Mr Hamill's requests and not answered as the real answer would be too embarrassing to those in power? meme
  • Score: 3

3:29pm Fri 18 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

thinkingoutsidethebo
x
wrote:
so the council meeting has taken place and this pair of incompetents have remained. It would not have been the case had more members of the public been included in the voting process. As I see it some labour counselors are leaving the sinking ship and others are hanging in the hope they may retain whatever vestiges of a role they have left.
The motion was defeated by only 7 votes! 7 votes!, I watched the webcam broadcast from the point when the motion for Alexander and Merrett to resign was put forward, the public attending the meeting greeted this motion with cheers, which to me shows the level of contempt that these two are held.
Even when Levene got up to speak, claiming LB was not a money making exercise, dissent was shown by the public who were warned by Gunnell to keep silent.
This council is a disgrace to this fine City of York, and should pay all the money back without question, we the residents of this City of York deserve better, and I hope upon hope that all this is not forgotten when we all go to the ballot boxes next year.
[quote][p][bold]thinkingoutsidethebo x[/bold] wrote: so the council meeting has taken place and this pair of incompetents have remained. It would not have been the case had more members of the public been included in the voting process. As I see it some labour counselors are leaving the sinking ship and others are hanging in the hope they may retain whatever vestiges of a role they have left.[/p][/quote]The motion was defeated by only 7 votes! 7 votes!, I watched the webcam broadcast from the point when the motion for Alexander and Merrett to resign was put forward, the public attending the meeting greeted this motion with cheers, which to me shows the level of contempt that these two are held. Even when Levene got up to speak, claiming LB was not a money making exercise, dissent was shown by the public who were warned by Gunnell to keep silent. This council is a disgrace to this fine City of York, and should pay all the money back without question, we the residents of this City of York deserve better, and I hope upon hope that all this is not forgotten when we all go to the ballot boxes next year. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 3

3:41pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

MEME,

I may need FOI to get answers re Coppergate; at the moment and Lendal Br(complaint/questio
ns being prepared)later. Many of those fines in Coppergate were against the principle of fair play; apart from the ongoing legality of using CCTV.

They are not using CCTV now at the top end of Coppergate

Both of these schemes have been criticized by the adjudicator; but personally, because of the long time Coppergate has been a prohibition of motor vehicles scheme I feel the council were worse on this scheme!

Colchester and Hemel Hempstead each had a complete refund policy!
Colchester Gazette web-site may still have details on the net.

In Scarborough we have an urban clearway with two peak periods for not stopping; clearly marked as per the traffic signs manual. The traffic regs 2002 allows sensible solutions. We have these policed occasionally, as is the Filey Rd bus lane; and a traffic cops gets mobile phone users quite often.
.
MEME, I may need FOI to get answers re Coppergate; at the moment and Lendal Br(complaint/questio ns being prepared)later. Many of those fines in Coppergate were against the principle of fair play; apart from the ongoing legality of using CCTV. They are not using CCTV now at the top end of Coppergate Both of these schemes have been criticized by the adjudicator; but personally, because of the long time Coppergate has been a prohibition of motor vehicles scheme I feel the council were worse on this scheme! Colchester and Hemel Hempstead each had a complete refund policy! Colchester Gazette web-site may still have details on the net. In Scarborough we have an urban clearway with two peak periods for not stopping; clearly marked as per the traffic signs manual. The traffic regs 2002 allows sensible solutions. We have these policed occasionally, as is the Filey Rd bus lane; and a traffic cops gets mobile phone users quite often. . Cheeky face
  • Score: 1

6:07pm Fri 18 Jul 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
thinkingoutsidethebo

x
wrote:
so the council meeting has taken place and this pair of incompetents have remained. It would not have been the case had more members of the public been included in the voting process. As I see it some labour counselors are leaving the sinking ship and others are hanging in the hope they may retain whatever vestiges of a role they have left.
The motion was defeated by only 7 votes! 7 votes!, I watched the webcam broadcast from the point when the motion for Alexander and Merrett to resign was put forward, the public attending the meeting greeted this motion with cheers, which to me shows the level of contempt that these two are held.
Even when Levene got up to speak, claiming LB was not a money making exercise, dissent was shown by the public who were warned by Gunnell to keep silent.
This council is a disgrace to this fine City of York, and should pay all the money back without question, we the residents of this City of York deserve better, and I hope upon hope that all this is not forgotten when we all go to the ballot boxes next year.
only 7...what a pity more of the labour contingent have not bailed ship - but as said previously they must be trying to hang on to something but Lord knows what. It's a silly notion of mine - but I would like to see what happens if no one votes. UKIP were perhaps a protest vote by many at the Europeans and I can't work out if people are favouring them for their views or simply that we've had all the other cr*p let's give someone else a go - in the vain hope that they may make improvements. meme has recently written if his/her workplace performance was so bad they would have been sent packing and I just don't understand why these are permitted to stay and yes it is like the Hatton/liverpool debacle. Local government has descended in to unthinkable depths and debt. It has impacted badly on the reputation of York in general it has pushed shops and businesses to the brink - it has changed the landscape beyond reason (and no good reason) and has wasted money hand over fist. This city should be a jewel yet it is tarnished. The potential here was something so may towns and cities could only envy and never aspire to........and before some twerp says so - The Car is Not The Enemy. Traffic in York is well diluted to what it was 25 years ago (there was major employment here then)
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinkingoutsidethebo x[/bold] wrote: so the council meeting has taken place and this pair of incompetents have remained. It would not have been the case had more members of the public been included in the voting process. As I see it some labour counselors are leaving the sinking ship and others are hanging in the hope they may retain whatever vestiges of a role they have left.[/p][/quote]The motion was defeated by only 7 votes! 7 votes!, I watched the webcam broadcast from the point when the motion for Alexander and Merrett to resign was put forward, the public attending the meeting greeted this motion with cheers, which to me shows the level of contempt that these two are held. Even when Levene got up to speak, claiming LB was not a money making exercise, dissent was shown by the public who were warned by Gunnell to keep silent. This council is a disgrace to this fine City of York, and should pay all the money back without question, we the residents of this City of York deserve better, and I hope upon hope that all this is not forgotten when we all go to the ballot boxes next year.[/p][/quote]only 7...what a pity more of the labour contingent have not bailed ship - but as said previously they must be trying to hang on to something but Lord knows what. It's a silly notion of mine - but I would like to see what happens if no one votes. UKIP were perhaps a protest vote by many at the Europeans and I can't work out if people are favouring them for their views or simply that we've had all the other cr*p let's give someone else a go - in the vain hope that they may make improvements. meme has recently written if his/her workplace performance was so bad they would have been sent packing and I just don't understand why these are permitted to stay and yes it is like the Hatton/liverpool debacle. Local government has descended in to unthinkable depths and debt. It has impacted badly on the reputation of York in general it has pushed shops and businesses to the brink - it has changed the landscape beyond reason (and no good reason) and has wasted money hand over fist. This city should be a jewel yet it is tarnished. The potential here was something so may towns and cities could only envy and never aspire to........and before some twerp says so - The Car is Not The Enemy. Traffic in York is well diluted to what it was 25 years ago (there was major employment here then) thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: 3

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