Should cyclists in London pay some kind of road tax?

[cosmictanya]

Originally Posted by .Adam

There is no reason why Soho shouldn't be 100% pedestrianised, it kills me whenever I go abroad and see huge areas handed over to outside eating, drinking, and obviously smoking.

Instead we have crammed pavements with tiny smoking areas pushing people onto the roads, whilst taxi's, vans and private cars race down the street, usually slamming the brakes on every 5 seconds.

Pedestrianisation of Old Compton Street with a cycle lane through the middle would work wonders here.. Westminster council need to open their eyes. The rest of the world is moving on and theres a chance in 15 years time London will be left behind.

rubbish. people who live in soho have as much right to park in their neighbourhood as you do. i lived in soho until i was in my mid teens - there are more important concerns than people who don't live there being able to take a drink and a fag outside on old compton street. if drivers have to break sharply, what concern is that of yours? it's up to them.

next you'll be saying mayfair should be pedestrianised - except that would kill it. people do not shop on bond street and then cycle home - the same as shoppers on madison avenue, rodeo drive, or the faubourg st honore will never be expected to find themselves blocked from driving/hailing a cab, by mass pedestrianisation schemes.

do you all just google 'stupid examples of british cycle lanes' to get these pictures? i see results like that throwing up examples of people complaining that cycle lanes force them to turn left when they 'want to turn right' - well boo hoo - car drivers are likewise not allowed to drive in any direction they please. nor are pedestrians.

and berlin - seems to recognise that actually cyclists DO need to follow rules and have respect for other road users, as evidenced in this picture showing traffic lights purely for cyclists...

image hosted on flickr


and oh look - speed bumps on a berlin cycle path...



and berlin again...

[potto]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

rubbish. people who live in soho have as much right to park in their neighbourhood as you do.

err why? The right of consumerism is utter bollocks as we are or about to find out soon. London should not be accommodating people want their cake and to eat it!

Now if they were all parking small electric vehicles out on the street that minimised impact then that would be a different story.

Interesting this came out today... yet another hidden cost

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20499005

Cycling and walking should be the norm for all short journeys, experts say.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said people should shun their cars if a trip could be done in 15 or 20 minutes on foot or bike.

It said the approach was needed to combat the "silent epidemic" of inactivity posing a risk to the health of people in England.

[potto]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

people do not shop on bond street and then cycle home - the same as shoppers on madison avenue, rodeo drive, or the faubourg st honore

right I think you will find that Bond Street was there before the motor car. Seriously people on here have absolutely no imagination whats so ever! Is all you can pull out of your hat either blanket pedestrianisation as found in a 1980s UK high street or the ugly status quo?

[cosmictanya]

Originally Posted by potto

right I think you will find that Bond Street was there before the motor car. Seriously people on here have absolutely no imagination whats so ever! Is all you can pull out of your hat either blanket pedestrianisation as found in a 1980s UK high street or the ugly status quo?

yes it was - and before the car the patrons of it used carriages and sedan chairs. so perhaps you'd like to retrain as a sedan chair lifter so someone who has just spent an average annual salary can be carried home like in the good old pre car days - because they certainly did not hop onto their penny farthing.

edit: and i think you will find, that i was responding to someone who themselves suggested '100% pedestrianisation' - or 'blanket' as you would say. so take it up with them - that was all they were able to 'pull out of their hat'

[cosmictanya]

come on - put your money where your mouth is...

[Octoman]

Originally Posted by potto

Now if they were all parking small electric vehicles out on the street that minimised impact then that would be a different story.

Why?
Perhaps they don't want to do that. It is their home after all.

Do you think the residents of Soho have the right to stop a tower being built in another part of London because it obstructs their view of the sunset? Of course not. Why therefore would you reserve the right to wander around other people's homes telling them to change the way they live because it doesn't appeal to your aesthetic taste?

[spindrift]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Between restricting the use of motor vehicles in London, reducing speed limits and increasing pedestrianisation, you see no increments in changes between the status quo and sedan chairs?

Oxford Street is London’s most dangerous street, with 35 times the number of accidents when compared with the average London street. With over 1000 bus-pedestrian accidents since 2000 and over 200 people seriously-injured London seems to be dragging its heels over what should be a human rights issue.

I can't do the Danish alphabet so sorry if I spell it wrong, but Stroget turned fifty this year:

In the early 1960's Strøget, the main street running east-west through the city centre, became quite famous. It was closed off to cars and transformed into a pedestrian zone.

There were protests back then. Cries of "we're not Italians! We don't want to walk!" were heard in the city. Shopkeepers feared for their businesses. Fortunately, the idea was implemented and the architect and urban planner Jan Gehl was instrumental in making it happen.

This was a turning point in the modern life of Copenhagen. Cars were taking over, fewer people were cycling and the city was congested and polluted. Visionary political decision-making and urban planning was needed and it arrived.

Since then, Copenhagen hasn't looked back. The fears of the shopkeepers were soon allayed - indeed there is nowhere in the world where pedestrian zones or bike lanes have caused commerce to suffer.

These two urban planning instruments only serve to increase the number of pedestrians and act as a form of traffic calming.

Streets become, quite simply, nicer places to be.

Before:



After:



When Strøget in Copenhagen was changed into a pedestrian street in 1962, it was after much debate and with considerable reservations. If, at the time, anyone had predicted that the city center would have six times as many carfree areas 34 years later, and that car traffic and parking possibilities would be substantially reduced, it would have been met with a great deal of skepticism. That life in the city center could flourish markedly would simply have been too unbelievable.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Why?
Perhaps they don't want to do that. It is their home after all.

Do you think the residents of Soho have the right to stop a tower being built in another part of London because it obstructs their view of the sunset? Of course not. Why therefore would you reserve the right to wander around other people's homes telling them to change the way they live because it doesn't appeal to your aesthetic taste?

well London and its wider population is always going to be of greater concern than a single persons house. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Im sure some people even want to have all of Hyde Park to themselves

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Why?
Perhaps they don't want to do that. It is their home after all.

You seem to easily forget that this planet is all our homes. And by driving a polluting car, you are contributing to its untimely death. Simple as.

[potto]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

yes it was - and before the car the patrons of it used carriages and sedan chairs. so perhaps you'd like to retrain as a sedan chair lifter so someone who has just spent an average annual salary can be carried home like in the good old pre car days - because they certainly did not hop onto their penny farthing.

edit: and i think you will find, that i was responding to someone who themselves suggested '100% pedestrianisation' - or 'blanket' as you would say. so take it up with them - that was all they were able to 'pull out of their hat'

right so what is with the hysterical nonsense about people needing or this bizarre concept of someones right to carry some clothes shopping or those awkwardly sized jewel stones in a large car?

I could probably count on my hand the numbers of shoppers who park a car in Old Bond Street. If it was just them, say they paid a premium to be able do that on a shared surface or heaven forbid in a side street, then Bond Street would be a much more pleasant place to shop no?

Bond Street has pretty much lost its edge anyway, the streetscape looks like a tip compared to its most luxurious shopping area label. The pavements are ridiculously small for the numbers of real shoppers ie the retail word footfall brings a clue.

Change is inevitable.

[.Adam]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

rubbish. people who live in soho have as much right to park in their neighbourhood as you do. i lived in soho until i was in my mid teens - there are more important concerns than people who don't live there being able to take a drink and a fag outside on old compton street. if drivers have to break sharply, what concern is that of yours? it's up to them.

next you'll be saying mayfair should be pedestrianised - except that would kill it. people do not shop on bond street and then cycle home - the same as shoppers on madison avenue, rodeo drive, or the faubourg st honore will never be expected to find themselves blocked from driving/hailing a cab, by mass pedestrianisation schemes.

Thanks for that insightful post, however I do live in Soho and have done for the last 5 years, nobody here drives because we live in SOHO. The cars you see parked ruining the street are out of town drivers who come in for the theatre or entertainment venues, the same people who sit in an auditorium where 99.9% of people have used public transport.

I am a resident of the West End and most of us would agree that entertainment and consumerism comes first, we choose to live here because of ease and convience. We have no right to complain about noise or anything else associated with living in such an area.

So actually.. you're statement is rubbish and you clearly know nothing about how a city or indeed London works. Please take your backward thinking views out of London.

Heres an idea, why not try Slough.. all the space you could want to park your lovely car.

[potto]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

edit: and i think you will find, that i was responding to someone who themselves suggested '100% pedestrianisation' - or 'blanket' as you would say. so take it up with them - that was all they were able to 'pull out of their hat'

well couldnt you could easily imagine many of the streets in Soho being car free on certain days or times? Say Friday evening and weekend? And a shared surface the rest of the week?

[.Adam]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

edit: and i think you will find, that i was responding to someone who themselves suggested '100% pedestrianisation' - or 'blanket' as you would say. so take it up with them - that was all they were able to 'pull out of their hat'

Yes, I would fully support 100% pedestrianisation with only delivery vechicles during the early hours.. because the West End is a part of this countrys rich heritage and belongs to everyone. Me and my fellow residents are lucky that we are able to live here but we have no rights to slow down the nature of this exciting place.

[potto]

Originally Posted by .Adam

Thanks for that insightful post, however I do live in Soho and have done for the last 5 years, nobody here drives because we live in SOHO. The cars you see parked ruining the street are out of town drivers who come in for the theatre or entertainment venues, the same people who sit in an auditorium where 99.9% of people have used public transport.

No doubt Westminster is quavering in its shoes about Andrew Lloyd Webber threatening to leave the country to protect that 0.1%!

[.Adam]

I know.. it was absurd. The car parking regulations they recently backed down on! What a mess that council is.

[Octoman]

Flat screen TV's produce over 680kg of CO2 per year. Modern cars produce that for each 5,000 miles travelled. I doubt a city centre driver would cover anything near that in a year. Do a bit of googling and you will see that a fuel efficient car has about the same annual carbon footprint as a modern TV. TV's now produce 4 times as much CO2 as they did prior to flatscreen tech while cars produce roughly half of their pre fuel efficient models.

So, they are both as bad as each other and one is improving while the other is getting worse. Why arent the eco warriors out there banging on windows and berating people for watching television and destroying the planet? Then add the fact that a hell of a lot of people have more than one television plus a PC. Modern refigerators produce the same CO2 as a television and older models are worse. Shouldn't we all be outraged that people stocking up on cheap frozen food are destroying the planet?

No.....it's just cars cars cars cars cars. I'm assuming nobody here owns TV or a fridge and everyone buys local sourced food? If not, they have no right to criticise anyone for driving a car on the grounds of their carbon footprint.

The ONLY argument is aesthetics which basically makes car haters NIMBYs

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Flat screen TV's produce over 680kg of CO2 per year.

Flat screen tvs didn't kill over two thousand people last year.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Octoman

No.....it's just cars cars cars cars cars. I'm assuming nobody here owns TV or a fridge and everyone buys local sourced food? If not, they have no right to criticise anyone for driving a car on the grounds of their carbon footprint.

Funny you spout that because in this particular case its not just about being an eco-warrior! This isnt the green thread, this an urban architecture forum. It is about worrying about Londons overall competitiveness and the health and state of the local population. All sorts of angles covered by people who actually care.

You really don't understand urban places and retail leisure do you?

[Octoman]

How do you know that? Some of your assumptions about why cars are bad is because drivers are fat and lazy and unhealthy. Is sitting in front of a TV healthy and life extending?

Look at the conditions sweatshop workers suffer producing these things as well.

If you have been on a single flight this year BTW you have produced the same amount of CO2 as driving to Edinburgh and back 350 times. I assume you never fly anywhere?

[.Adam]

Octoman - I think your playing dumb on purpose here, you're as far as I'm aware a clever guy who can surely see the difference in what is being discussed.

Lets face it, you like your car and want to drive it around despite what it is doing to the environment, and by that I don't just mean 'eco-warrior' I mean the visual environment and noise pollution all that have damaged the city.

If you look at old and now photos of many cities, the architecture hasnt changed all that much at all - what has changed is the amount of space/furniture/roads given over to the motor vechicle which have ripped the heart out of entertainment and shopping districts.