No parking outside Sainsbury’s/Hattush etc on Thursday 2/9/21 whilst the meters are installed.
Parking meters coming to Honor Oak Park?
Wonder what the reasoning for this is? I don’t often drive there, but when I’ve needed to park always found a space so the 20 minute time seemed to work well.
I guess a further attempt to discourage car use and / or raise revenue?
Typical small brained council mentality to bring this in and it will be under the guise of reducing car use but ultimately is about revenue. The current system works well and allows people to go about their business. I would say it’s inevitable that we’re going to see CPZs imposed against the will of the residents in the next few years too.
The war against cars just becomes a war against business and it’s the small ones which will suffer as people will simply drive elsewhere for the convenience.
It’s all very well to try and change behaviour and encourage bike / public transport use but people forget that this is a country that has horrible wet / cold weather for many months of the year not to mention a totally inconsistent summer.
Agree. Completely unnecessary measure that will make everyone’s life more difficult for little benefit (motorists will either (a) not park and not shop on the high street or (b) park on the adjacent streets - revenue generation for the council is likely to be modest at best IMHO).
As well as the vehicle owners and the businesses on the high street, residents of the adjacent streets will suffer greater traffic, parking and pollution issues as vehicles are rammed in there.
Extra frustrating when there is no problem that needs solving, much less to which this is a solution. Has not been consulted upon or justified AFAIK.
Understand the prevailing pressures on councils but Lewisham gets a massive thumbs down on this action.
I’m optimistically hoping it might end up with the same terms as the Brockley triangle (outside Marvelous Greens & Beans etc…) with the first 30 minutes still free:
I’ve never needed to park there myself, but have used similar parking to access local businesses in Sydenham High Street in the past. It was super handy.
Good point. Hopefully so.
Maximum 2 hours would hit some businesses (hospitality, hairdressers etc). I found it unclear from the notice in your photo whether you could pay in cash. I was pleasantly surprised recently to find that you could pay in cash at Girton Road. I had thought you needed a smart phone to park there. It was expensive though.
I am certain it won’t hit business.
It’s either by phone or the app by the looks of it.
Thanks Leo (and for all the work you do for Lewisham).
I agree that promotion of walking and cycling is an important and worthwhile cause.
But that is little to do with this matter. I am not sure that quoting a polemic publication from TFL advocating the worth of cycling and walking provides any certainty whatsoever that installing parking meters along Honor Oak high street will not hit businesses. Nor does it address the other disbenefits raised in this thread.
The materials you cite are talking about benefits engendered by creating more cycle lanes, bigger side walks, more places to park bikes and the like (which I agree with) - none of which is the same as imposition of parking meters.
FWIW I doubt whether installing parking meters will promote walking or cycling (if that is the purported objective). Is there any evidence that installing parking meters like this leads to a change from car use to walking or cycling? In my view, people living close enough will continue to cycle or walk to the high street (i.e. little or no change). People who are further away are unlikely to change from car use to cycling or walking (in any significant numbers) in order to avoid the Honor Oak parking meters - they will simply drive elsewhere e.g. Sydenham retail park where parking is not charged. The business lost will be from that group and from people living in other areas driving through Honor Oak who simply will not stop on their way through (assuming that there is no free short term period).
Parking along the HOP high street presently limits stays to 30 minutes I believe; the issue or issues which parking meters are seeking to address and the benefits (against the number of disbenefits) are opaque to me, I’m afraid.
Let’s just see. Those utilising free parking for longer than 30 minutes were probably doing so to commute from Honor Oak Park.
I’d be very surprised if any business in HOP, minutes from a train station and served by 5 bus routes, is getting a large of chunk of its business from people driving there.
If you’re travelling from under 5km away, you really shouldn’t be driving there anyway.
As the TFL report highlights, business owners often over predict the percentage of their customers travelling by car. But anyway, if these changes do clearly have destructive impact on the parade, they’ll likely be taken out again.
I agree that this should not be the end of things. Carrot and stick is needed to get that much needed ‘modal shift’ in London from cars to PT, walking, cycling. Unfortunately, the carrots - pavement widening, segregated cycle lanes, urban greening, LTNs etc, cost a lot of money and TFL’s finances are in a dire state after Covid-19.
Some pavements could be widened for no cost, if cars were not parked on them!
Did a councillor just cite a blog post from some fringe pressure group (“treehugger.com”) to justify new parking charges that evidently no one wants?
Mr Gibbons states: “If you’re travelling from under 5km away, you really shouldn’t be driving there anyway.”
Sorry Mr Gibbons, but please don’t tell me how I should and shouldn’t be travelling. You know nothing of my personal circumstances and fitness to walk or cycle. You know nothing of what I’m doing in town, and why I might need a vehicle to do it.
Why didn’t you ask businesses and residents if they wanted this? Who do you work for?
Yes I did, I also cited a report by TFL.
“Evidently no one wants.” I don’t think you’ve got much evidence for that claim pal.
If you read what people (the residents you’re meant to represent) are saying above, you’ll spot the evidence.
Unless you have counter-evidence from the public consultation you ran? Oh, wait…
- I want parking charges on Honor Oak Park
- I don’t want parking charges on Honor Oak Park
- I don’t care
And will only get worse if everyone stops using cars in congestion charging zones…
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
The temporary signs on Honor Oak high street - which said something like ‘parking suspended due to P and D installation’ - have disappeared.
No P and D installed but some parking signage appears to have been cleaned up/replaced.
In 2019/20 public transport fares brought in £4.9Bn to TFL.
£1.3Bn came from commercial properties, road network compliance, advertising and Congestion Charge zone.
The net income of the Congestion Charge in 2017/18 was £155.9m, so pretty small fry compared to overall income. It’s primary goal is to discourage car traffic in central London, if it generates additional income as well, that’s just an additional bonus.
Until Covid-19, London has been the only major city in western Europe that hasn’t received direct Government funding to run day to day transport services - cos a deal by Boris Johnson as Mayor with George Osborne to make TFL self-funded. It doesn’t make sense to not invest in your capital city’s infrastructure like that IMO but hey ho TFL manned to survive until Covid-19.
If you genuinely want to help save TFL’s finances, get back on public transport and lobby the Government to offer a long-standing sustainable funding settlement to London.
Why mention 17/18, what’s the figure since Mayor Khan raised the charge in 2020? In financial year 20/21 it’s £232m, of which £106m was due to the increase. The mayor has also requested £500m from vehicle excise duty funds.
As an NHS employee I use public transport everyday, including during the peak of the pandemic. So don’t patronise me by telling me to get back on public transport pal. Tell your mayor to stop being driven to take his dog for a walk, accompanied by 2 other vehicles.
Just cos it was a quick google and that’s the figure I could find, which shows how minimal CC income is in the grand scheme of TFL’s income. £232m isn’t much out of pre-pandemic income of £6.2bn, which was the point I was making.
Your first message was perhaps facetious, but I wasn’t quite sure. Your second is just aggressive.
Point out the aggressive parts of the message please? I used the word ‘Pal’ intentionally as you had used it in a response earlier.
Fair play, you should never respond in kind to our elected public servants, it’s never a good look.
Indeed. Last week the notices inferred that Pay and Display was going to happen - as a passing member of this forum mentioned to me today - now it isn’t. Probably for the best as a lot of local businesses would take a hit. I do fully expect parking wardens to return having not seen them since the beginning of the pandemic.
Interesting poll, thanks for setting it up.
Given almost half of Lewisham residents don’t own a car, and motoring as a whole is paid out of general taxation (there is no such thing as ‘road tax’) it really is half the borough subsiding the other half to drive and park for free. Personally I’d walk to HOP more often if I knew I could sit out in a cafe or bar.
Imagine you could rephrase the questions and look at it from the other point of view…
- Motorists should be allowed to park their private property in public spaces for free, at everyone’s expense
- Motorists should pay for the privilege to park on public high streets
- I mostly walk or cycle to the shops
- I’d actually prefer to remove some parking, replace it with ‘parklets’ so that I can eat and drink in a less toxic and noisy atmosphere
So, whether they bring in parking charges or not, I’m still firmly in the ‘option D’ space.
Some very good points clausy. With the exception of disabled people and delivery drivers who needs to park along a small high st with local shops and cafes - it’s not like people are doing the Big Shop in that tiny Sainsbury’s. High streets strewn with cars are not pleasant places to shop or eat.
There was also a study in the news yesterday saying living in areas with high air pollution increases the likliehood of suffering badly from Covid. Drivers have to face up to the negative externalities of their choices.
An interesting perspective, but what is vehicle Excise Duty, which raises approximately £6.5 billion per year? And the £20 billion raised through fuel duty? Are there taxes that are paid by non car owners that aren’t paid by car owners?
Should parking spaces for electric vehicles be available and free?
Fair enough, Clausy.
Few would disagree with the objective of less pollution and noise.
I remain unconvinced that installing parking meters will achieve these aims. For reduction of noise, pollution etc on Honor Oak high street, the overriding key issues IMHO are vehicles zooming up and down the road, and/or long tail backs from the traffic lights - not use of the few parking bays. (Are you proposing that cars should no longer be able to drive down HO high street?)
Unfortunately, there will be some - including me - who reluctantly need to have a car (for decent reasons - reduced mobility, to hold a job, to support elderly family out of area are a few such reasons).
I am not sure it is true or fair to say that a non-driving half of Lewisham are subsidising car owners, who are very heavily taxed through fuel duties and other taxes: “in 2019/20, VED generated around £7.0 billion (up £0.3 billion from the previous financial year) and Fuel Duty about £27.6 billion” https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/economics#a16
Adding (on top of these taxes) a charge to park on a high street is highly regressive - it will hit people on lower incomes much more than the wealthy. It means that car ownership and use becomes the preserve of the rich and/or pushes people on low income - who need to use a car for good reasons - into debt and relative poverty.
The parking charges on the high street, as I have argued above, are also likely to shift parking and related issues such as traffic, pollution and noise into nearby residential areas (which is probably more harmful to health in my view).
I look forward to a world, hopefully not too far away, where there are universal environmentally friendly transport solutions but in the meantime do not believe that installing parking meters on the HO high street addresses any of the issues raised.
Interesting poll options, Clausy, thanks for that…
@NL1 and @knot_in_denial hats off to you both for balancing the discussion with some facts. Taxes on motorists are huge. We haven’t even considered the VAT that motorists pay. Average cost of a new car: £33K. About 2M new cars sold in the UK every year. That’s about £13B in VAT, right?
Annual government spending on roads? £11B
So I hope Clausy and others are thankful for the many billions of net contribution to the NHS and other public services made specifically by motorists every year, in addition to all the other various economic and social benefits that motorists bring. I think we can all agree we appreciate having emergency services, deliveries etc…
Hi Phil and welcome to the forum.
I understand your pain. Might I suggest you get an EV? No road tax, fuel tax at only 5%, free entry into Central London. Oh and a nice government subsidy to offset the VAT on your initial outlay.
Used ones start at around £5k last time I looked. Of course they aren’t emission free but you can’t have everything in this life … Otherwise use your bike if you are local.
Taking away the pollution aspects for a moment, space is at a premium in cities, especially London. More people want to park than there is space. How can that demand be properly managed if not through parking charges?
Motorists simply have to accept they do not have the right to park on public land free of charge.
We have terrible problems with parking on Taymount Rise - pavements blocked causing pedestrian to have to walk in the road, access to emergency vehicles and the rubbish lorry impeded, double yellow lines ignored with abadon, cars being clipped due to over crowding. It is getting to the point where is is dangerous and still no one wants anything done.
If you can still park for free for an initial 30 minutes I really don’t see a problem with parking metres. I doubt many people park along that stretch for any longer. Lorries will still have a loading bay too it appears and there will be different parking rules for Disabled Badge holders.
I’m genuinely baffled by how heated this has become!
Motorists are “the public” too, you know?
Isn’t it reasonable that some land is reserved for the free-of-charge use of pedestrians, some for the free-of-charge use of cars etc? Or are some members of the public more important than others?
Driving is cheap, far too cheap IMO. Especially when you compare to how much it costs to use public transport, and especially considering the impact to our city and the environment.
Lewisham is super relaxed about parking charges, way more than other boroughs.
There is no “war on motorists”, they’ve had it way too easy.
VAT on new cars, yeah I suppose. VAT is collected on most purchases, so if someone didn’t buy a brand new car, they would have probably spent it on something else and generated the same tax revenue.
I assume that @clausy’s poll is meant as a joke?
Thank you for helping to provide conclusive evidence of the community’s view Claus
Of course motorists are the public too, but your analogy does not stand up to much scrutiny.
If I, as a pedestrian, use a pavement or pathway reserved for pedestrians I am moving and others can also use it at the same time, If I stand an block the pavement someone can ask me to move aside. If you park your car on the side of the road no one else can use that space until you move your car.
And yes in the hierarchy of road users pedestrians are the most vulnerable and therefore should generally be the primary consideration, especially in residential areas.
That sounds like a recipe for the fit and the rich.
Many people can’t afford to replace their car and even those who can afford to scrap an old car (with all the resulting pollution that would entail) couldn’t afford a new or electric vehicle, even though some of them might desire to shift the pollution involved in the manufacture of it and its fuel elsewhere (not of course shifting the particulates that come from a heavier vehicle’s road use).
And not everyone with reduced mobility has a blue badge to exempt them from certain (not all or in all areas) parking charges. Those who have suffered injury or illness and are undergoing serious and debilitating medical treatment don’t get blue badges.
I for one would love to be able to follow the instruction “get on your bike”.
@HannahM I agree pavements are for pedestrians. I rage against vehicles parked on pavements. But how much pavement clutter is down to advertising boards and unnecessary signage?
Well pavement clutter is a different arguement!
Indeed, Mary! Dare I say there are some elitist/divisive arguments creeping into this topic. How would electric cars solve the parking issues (if there are any) on Honor Oak Park? What if you can’t afford an electric car, like most of us? How would “use your bike if you are local” sound to a disabled person?
Oh and leonk, I assure you, driving is not “cheap” unless you’re a wealthy person for whom it’s a small proportion of your outgoings. We should consider the many working class people who rely on their cars, like carers and delivery drivers for example, and who would be hit disproportionately by extra parking charges (in addition to the huge and regressive taxation on fuel, annual vehicle tax etc)
Hannah, if some of us believe there are “hierarchies” of road users, we’ll struggle to have an objective and fair discussion about new parking charges in Honor Oak Park, without ideology creeping in and clouding our judgement.
In any case, many comments here seem tangential to the question of parking on Honor Oak Park. Perhaps some comments should be moved to a separate thread.
Just out of interest, how would parking charges affect you personally given that the first 30 minutes would be free? I’m not being challenging with that question, I’m just genuinely interested. Thanks
Hi Smiris, it is a good question.
We do not know whether there are plans for parking meters or not anymore (given the removal of signage).
If there were, we do not know whether parking meters would have a 30 minute leeway for free parking or not.
Assuming that there was a 30 minute free parking limit - this replicates the current situation. If you park over 30 minutes on HO high street presently then you are liable to be fined.
The question then arises - why have parking meters in the first place. The objectives of having parking meters on HO high street have not been clearly expressed or evidenced in the discussion above as far as I can see.
There are not presently difficulties parking on HO high street (cf. the example of Taymount Rise). As far as I have observed, motorists tend park for a short period, grab some shopping and then continue on. As I have already said, installing parking meters (if providing no free time) will not avoid the main issue for pollution etc of the cars driving up and down the street and idling in a queue for the traffic lights. In my view, neither will parking meters facilitate a significant change in people’s behaviours from car use to walking/bikes.
To be clear - personally I rarely, if ever, park on HO high street since I live within walking distance and walk there. My concerns regarding the parking meters are (a) for the local businesses and (b) for pushing parking issues, including pollution and noise, into the adjacent residential streets (all for no obvious benefit).
Enjoying the fruity discussion though!
Well I do think it a bit elitist to be bringing in £33k cars into this debate on parking in Honor Oak. I’ve never paid anything like that and I bought my last one only two years ago. One could argue - if you are too disabled to ride a bike you probably shouldn’t be driving a car.
These were common when I was young powered by first world war soldiers who had various bits blown off. Last week’s Paralympics show how we have progressed:
So let’s get back to the real issue - 30 minutes free parking actually promotes usage of the bays for shopping rather than having them blocked by commuters. Perversely that may be encouraging local car shopping which, I assume, you are in favour?.
What say you to that on topic question?
Luckily we don’t live in a society that thinks like that.
It is cheap! Compared to public transport.
I own a car, and use it fairly regularly, mostly for visiting family outside London, but occasional trips in London also. I spend less per month than a monthly travel card would cost (factoring in all costs of having a car).
Journeys to other parts of the UK can be ridiculously expensive by train.
I understand that driving is an accessibility issue that shouldn’t just be for high income people. But that’s kind of getting into issues with capitalism itself.
Perhaps a socialist environment where we were all allocated x number of miles would be appropriate. Would that be something you’d be into?
The DVLA certainly does … try getting a licence if you have had seizures in the last two years or have impaired vision for starters. But you can still walk, ride or take public transport to Honor Oak … I’ve not checked out if the pavements are wide enough for invalid carriages to pass comfortably. Leo?
What say you to the hairdressers and hospitality venues?
If we want to kill our high streets as any kind of inclusive destination venue, this is a sure fire way to do it.
On your other point, when you said:
Well if you’ve had seizures or have impaired vision you probably shouldn’t be riding a bicycle either. I’d be surprised if you could get insured to do so.
But your original comment was “if you are too disabled to ride a bike you probably shouldn’t be driving a car”. That rules out everyone with bad knees for starters!
Very well said, Mary. It’s important that we all think inclusively, especially in matters of public asset policy.
All good points. Thanks
Iclusivity is important and some people will always need to drive. Howeve many don’t. We live in a very walkable area with good public transport.
If you own a car it can seem like you need it as you organise your life around having it, especially in London where the costs of car ownership really have to be justified.
Sorry but that’s total nonsense.
I wouldn’t oppose the parking charges if the first 30 mins was free with a max stay of 2-3 hours to cater for those who need more time to visit the hairdresser or beautician. I would assume the revenue would go mostly to pay for better enforcement - not sure if the current limits are enforced. In the 15 years I have lived here I haven’t seen any tickets being issued.
Let’s hope any “30 mins free” provision isn’t as farcical as that being introduced by Southwark ‘over the hill’ in East Dulwich – as described in this thread:
“I checked this out a while back. It’s 30 mins free but you still have to register, apparently. I called the number and no one answered for ages. Instead, it kept playing a message to say that I could use the PayByPhone app. I downloaded it and put the location code in. However, the app doesn’t give you option of registering for the free 30 mins. Instead, you have to select paid parking. I didn’t do that and risked popping into the shops and got away with it. I contacted the council about this, asking how we are supposed to register for free parking if the phone number and app don’t work, but I never received a response.”
I don’t think Phil is local.
Controlled parking near uncontrolled parking rarely works. I live on a residential road where we have 6 x 30 minute controlled spaces. They are completely empty now. All the spaces that are uncontrolled are completely full. Any additional controls to these spaces in Honor Oak will just shift the parking to the residential streets if you take the evidence from what happens in the rest of the area.
I have used this Sainsburys while walking, cycling but never driven there but I do think we should be pragmatic rather than idealist when it comes to these changes and think about local residents. The current answers to car pollution seem to be about diverting parking, congestion from one place to the other rather than trying to tackle some of the underlying issues. It is understandable that non-car owning residents object to the fact that our streets are occupied by cars parked on them or owned indirectly by driveways which own/occupy the parking space in front of them for free but CPZs tend to be unpopular as they are too expensive and tend to be in the richer streets.
I think that a cheap borough wide car permit scheme connected to Council tax for everybody who owns a car in the borough with exemptions/reductions for carers etc should be considered. It would need a good bit of thought to get the detail right which we all know is not Lewisham’s strong point.
Not at all!
In fact judging from the popularity of the ‘parklets’ poll option, people seem to want to improve the social and community aspect of a local high street: every parklet means one less parking meter, so essentially we’re all in agreement.
Why’s that, Andy?
In fairness it’s not related to parking meters, but an interesting, if different viewpoint none the less.
Can’t believe you’ve been allowed to get away with that comment, I can only imagine the furore if a certain former member had made it.
Modifications that can be made include
- hand controls for braking and accelerating
- clutch conversions
- seat belt modifications or harnesses
- special seating
- wheelchair stowage equipment.
- steering and secondary control aids
- left-foot accelerator conversions
- parking brake devices
- extra car mirrors
Automatic gears and power-assisted steering may also help you if you’re a disabled driver.
You can’t be certain, and it’s easy to say when it doesn’t directly affect you (or maybe it does?).
The reports you linked show nothing to support your argument.
If Lewisham council had a plan to remove all the car parking spaces or reduce them to enable pavement widening then those reports might have more relevance, though would still not be a guarentee, because you don’t know if x people who drive would either a) now walk or b) be replaced by other people now visiting the High Street as more of an enjoyable place.
Now in reality it seems there are no changes so we are probably discussing something that won’t happen.
That said, I actually, and I expect most people do, admire the aims you and the council appear to strive for - which I think are to reduce pollution for local residents and more widely.
I think the council would get far more support for some of these measures if there were clear goals set out as to what projects were meant to achieve.
We know that most children in the borough will be in x schools between 8 or 9am and 3 to 4pm. We know kids (excluding anyone with certain health conditions) are disproportinately affected by pollution. So surely that should be the main target for reducing pollution around those schools, especially at times the kids are there. That is my great hope!
I also realise some of this is beyond Lewisham and needs much wider agreement.
Thanks for your efforts and apologies if this came over the wrong way.
I just wanted to address these alternative facts with some real facts. Have a look at this. A road map for motoring taxation - Institute For Fiscal Studies - IFS
Driving imposes costs on wider society. According to government estimates, the biggest of these by far is congestion (80% of the total). Government estimates for 2015 suggest that each additional kilometre driven caused an average of 17p of societal harm. Other costs include accidents, greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution and noise. While the additional cost of greenhouse gas emissions, at 1p per kilometre driven, may sound small, this still equates to £4 billion per year across the UK.
Oddly they don’t state how many miles are driven if £4 billion is 1p then 17p is £68,000,000 in societal cost. These are generally things like congestion, accidents, air quality, poor health and fitness etc. Summed up by this kind of illustration (which shows similar numbers to the Institute for Fiscal Studies)
Finally let’s not forget the actual road casualties and accidents that cost the NHS, and other emergency services an absolute ton of money
- an estimated 1,472 reported road deaths in 2020 which includes a total of 4 months of national lockdown (April to June and November)
- an estimated 23,486 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties in 2020
And these are DOWN 20% year on year because of all the lockdowns.
So let’s not try to trick people into thinking motoring contributes positively to the economy. Collecting money from parking meters won’t put a dent in it, but putting people off driving unnecessarily does save society money: 17p for every kilometre you drive to put it simply.
Thanks again for your commitment to the cause, Clausy.
No-one could argue with the overall policy goal of reducing the use of motor vehicles that pollute the environment amongst other detriments.
The question for this thread is - is installing parking meters (with no time free) on Honor Oak Park high street (a) an effective and (b) a fair and proportionate means of achieving or advancing this aim?
With apologies for repetition, I don’t think it is - parking meters fail on both (a) (they won’t stop people’s driving rather will simply cram HOP parking into nearby residential streets or car drivers shop in a different area; HOP pollution in any event is mainly due to car driving on high street, not parking) and (b) (such charges are highly regressive and prima facie likely to negatively impact local businesses and residents of nearby streets).
Pleased to be shown otherwise but can’t quite understand the reasoning underpinning the view of those who have indicated a preference in the poll for installation of the meters.
I do wonder how many of these people have first hand knowledge of the effects of schemes which displace traffic and parking onto residential roads where they live. It is very easy when distant from a problem to say it will be fine without having to live with the consequences.
I am totally in favour of curbing car use if it results in a reduction in use but talk to the local residents who are likely to be affected and put in defined/time constrained rules rather than an “if it doesn’t work we will take it out” statement which rarely holds any value.
Going off thread a bit here.
As a cyclist, we do get a lot of grief from motorists and pedestrians. I cycled into town yesterday and a motorist thought that I didn’t deserve my lane but felt his need to turn into the lane to catch the left turn to the South Circular was greater, he got to test out his brakes. With pedestrians it tends to be more a case of waking them up from their mobile phone trance when they are crossing a cycle lane. I also drive occasionnally and have similar issues. Most of time though I walk and I find it the most pleasant form of transport. I do think walking gets very little priority from the Council and putting cars and cycle storage on pavements where there is insufficient space causing issues for pedestrians emphasizes that message.
The cycling, motorist and tax agrument strikes me as a game people want to play while ignoring the facts.
As research by British Cycling found, 87 per cent of cyclists also regularly drive cars, and so most cyclists have already paid the road tax.7 Jul 2015
The majority of active cyclists 87% own a car while most rhetoric from forums would give the impression that cyclists never drive or are we just hearing form the 13%? The general them and us discussions tend to alienate the majority and I think harms cyclists more than motorists.
The Guardian found that people who cycle the most are likely to own at least two cars, again people who pay car tax. I don’t know anybody who fits this demographic although I remember a thread a few years back from Clausy about getting a parking permit for his two cars.
I doubt this is true any more but the bigger issue is that cycling is a minority pursuit and that minority tends to be middle aged high income men. The statistics say that cycling is seriously under-represented amongst women, people from a minority ethnic background, people of low income or young people. I take the safety argument but I think making it more representative of the population and more common would help so that people see cyclists as us rather than them and see them often.
I agree 100%, the debate has become quite fractious and seems to have really polarised all involved.
In my opinion now is the time for both normal people and cyclists to show each other some compassion and respect.
this is very good
It would be interesting to learn more about the priorities of people driving short distances, as well as the numbers of people staying longer than, say, 30 mins, and which businesses they visit.
If we want to encourage more walking and cycling, then it strikes me as unusual to start by disincentivising something else. I think I’ve probably driven to that Sainsbury’s once in 8 years and that’s only because I was passing by anyway. I imagine broken bikes would need driven to Vaidas. Not sure on the practicalities of the various estate agents taking clients to viewings without cars - an estate agent on a tandem would be peak SE23 though, so I’m holding out for that.
It would be good to see more secure lockups for bikes in public places that are weatherproof and make it difficult for would be thieves to window shop. Getting around London on a beater bike is not fast, but at least you know it (probably) won’t get nicked - and it’s still better than enduring morons on TfL blasting their eardrums out or having conversations on speakerphone.
As the rest have said, I’m all for reducing air pollution and avoiding congestion, injury and death, but I’m not sure if on this occasion it’s been particularly well thought through. Making certain roads one way and adding LTNs is all well and good, but those measures seem to displace traffic rather than reduce it.
If you want bold, let’s see cycle lanes on the A205 and express bus routes going across the city. These might not be great ideas but they’re “pro” something rather than “anti” car.
The X68 bus is limited stop from Croydon to Russell Square.