Jeremy Vine defends Peter Hitchens not wearing a helmet; Your thoughts on e-scooters in bike racks debate; Danny MacAskill Climate Games; G set for new Ineos deal; UK's next CYCLOPS junction; Hire bikes installed in no cycling zone + more on the live blog

mdavidford wrote:

I somehow doubt it's what he meant, but Mike Graham's not entirely wrong.

(Bonus: it eats CO2)

Can't read the article but the production of 1 tonne of concrete produces around 622 Kgs of CO2

Once you've bought an electric car it's very cheap to run, so people may tend to use their electric cars for even more trips.

But where the capital cost is higher, that wil be a disincentive to buy. This should result in a lower number of cars per household and teenagers will have to share a car (The Horror).

Nigel Garage wrote:

It also gives an idea of why some residents inside LTNs are for the schemes. "It’s probably put the price of my property up by 10 per cent”, one person said. 

What's that? LTNs are good for residents? Or bad for residents, but despite that it makes other people ore keen to live there? The second doesn't seem likely.

Almost as good as living in a cul de sac, I'd imagine.

Gear Change One Year On.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I don't think there's much doubt that moving through traffic off your street to a different, busier road is anything other than beneficial to you personally. The article is very balanced - it's pretty pro-LTN if anything, as it's reflecting the thinking of the Tory party leadership.

I don't actually know why people think I'm somehow anti-LTN, as I'm not in principle - it's the undemocratic, divisive way they've been implemented that is the issue.

undemocratic?

Are the council not elected? The council decide many things within having a public consultation on them. If you ask the residents of only the roads in question they would likely be in favour, but if you throw it open to everyone who lives within 50 miles, they would be outnumbered by those that would like to drive through.

If you ask everyone should council tax be spent on leisure facilities or parks or arts. you might find a majority against a great many of them. But the fact is the council are responsible for delivering the best outcomes to all residents, not to follow the demands of the mob. In almost all cases people accept that the council have been elected and do not need to run an extensive consultation on every issue. But if anything seeks to adress the privilige held be drivers, it is deemed undemocratic? Do we see the council putting th budget forward to the people for confirmation? after all this affects everyone who uses public services or pays local taxes? We do not.

Was there a consultation before turning swathes of public space over to the storage of private property? The roads were never used for storage of any property until the car came along. No we see roads reduced in width by parked cars and a great deal of the congestion in and around LTNs and on many other streets is a direct effect of people being allowed to take up part of the publi highway forlong term storage of the private property. 

Nigel Garage wrote:

More lies.

A direct quote from the article:

So where does the balance of opinion actually lie? A survey of residents in four LTNS, in Birmingham, Bournemouth, Ipswich and Manchester, conducted by Kantar for the Department for Transport and published in November 2020, showed that the vast majority of respondents agreed that the Government should act to increase road safety (90 per cent), improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion (89 per cent) and reduce traffic noise (80 per cent).

When it came to the local schemes themselves, opinion was more divided, with 61 per cent supporting them and 29 per cent opposing them.

Nigel Garage wrote:

A rambling stream of consciousness designed to obscure the fact that you lied when you summarised the content of a article that you yourself cited.  

Nigel Garage wrote:

 As has already been witnessed by the deeply unpopular LTNs in Dulwich - especially with BAME people but less so with extremely wealthy white residents 

Proven racist who thinks it's OK to mock BAME figures for their racial characteristics pretends to care about BAME people...did you know 70% of BAME people in London neither own nor have access to a car? A miniscule sample of BAME people responded to the Dulwich LTN survey, most wouldn't bother as not being car owners they wouldn't care. The primary opposition to the Dulwich LTNs comes precisely from the wealthy white residents of the area - as could be clearly seen from the 100% white turnout at the rather pathetic >50-person demonstration held two weeks ago. Do stop spouting rubbish regarding an area you know nothing about, please.

I'm all for proportion, wit etc.

Just wondering if that was the same witty and ascerbic Peter Hitchens who made a factually incorrect statement in public (relating to Covid as it happens), then when this was pointed out first insisted it was true, then said it was just opinion, then tried to shift the argument, said the counter argument was disingenuous, claimed he was being persecuted for speaking the truth and finally decried the journal this was all published in (filling a large part of the letters page over several issues in letting him have his very windy right of reply) as government toadies?

That "establishment journal" being the satirical Private Eye. Often decried as being both left and right wing of course.

I seem to be seeing that pattern frequently - state something contentious, double down on it, then claim it is just opinion, then eventually act offended and claim the "persecution" is evidence that you're speaking the truth. (That's especially favoured by those in a powerful position - we're being victimised!) Being laughed at may just mean you're laughable. Or as Terry Wogan once said, they're not laughing with you.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'm all for proportion, wit etc.

Just wondering if that was the same witty and ascerbic Peter Hitchens who made a factually incorrect statement in public (relating to Covid as it happens), then when this was pointed out first insisted it was true, then said it was just opinion, then tried to shift the argument, said the counter argument was disingenuous, claimed he was being persecuted for speaking the truth and finally decried the journal this was all published in (filling a large part of the letters page over several issues in letting him have his very windy right of reply) as government toadies?

That "establishment journal" being the satirical Private Eye. Often decried as being both left and right wing of course.

I seem to be seeing that pattern frequently - state something contentious, double down on it, then claim it is just opinion, then eventually act offended and claim the "persecution" is evidence that you're speaking the truth. (That's especially favoured by those in a powerful position - we're being victimised!) Being laughed at may just mean you're laughable. Or as Terry Wogan once said, they're not laughing with you.

The public humiliation of Peter Hitchens in the Eye was worth this year's subscription fee alone!

You did however miss out the classic trope of also claiming to be a victim of cancel culture and being cancelled - whilst making such claims on Twitter, Facebook, TV, radio, newspapers, blogs...

stomec wrote:

The public humiliation of Peter Hitchens in the Eye was worth this year's subscription fee alone!

You did however miss out the classic trope of also claiming to be a victim of cancel culture and being cancelled - whilst making such claims on Twitter, Facebook, TV, radio, newspapers, blogs...

I take the whole "the media have it in for me" while making money selling your story as a given. The little I've read (he's not to my taste) he's got some writing skill. So while initially righteous - like watching a bully miss with a punch and hit a wall - it ended up sad as you watched him damaging himself with his own misplaced force.

Still, journalist (or columnist) so it's all part of the job.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Re: Vine and Peter Hitchens - people questioned Peter on his non-use of a cycling helmet, to which he replied:

"It is , as always, a matter of proportion. The main danger, during normal commuter and leisure cycling by middle-aged people with road sense and driving licences, comes from lycra-covered, helmeted morons overtaking you on the inside. One of these will probably kill me one day."

As always, witty, ascerbic and bang on the money, Peter Hitchens is probably the finest journalist of his generation. A pity he didn't point out the dangers of TT bikes too, but the Twitter character limit probably prevented him from expanding his answer.

Maybe the "witty, ascerbic and bang on the money, Peter Hitchens" would like to look at the road stats and compare the number of cyclists killed by lycra wearers undertaking vs the number of cyclists killed by law and highway code breaking motorists?

Nigel, this is really poor trolling even for you!!

Nigel Garage wrote:

His central point, which was unintended to be taken entirely seriously, is essentially the same as mine.

Thank you for confirming that we shouldn't take anything you write seriously.

"politeness and courtesy"

Ha. I must have imagined him calling other people "morons" with very little provocation, because otherwise I can't square that with him being such a polite little man.

So when a car pulled out right in front of me resulting in me crashing into the side of it and then drove off that was my poor roadcraft was it? Or was it my lack of common sense? Or was I being rude?

Interestingly the police didn't think so and he was successfully prosecuted for driving with out due care and attention. His insurance company also settled my claim. I'm still not sure why he wasn't prosecuted for leaving the scene of an accident.

"witty, ascerbic and bang on the money"

Translation: nasty little man who prefers his own prejudices to facts. Let's face it, it must have been 50-50 whether he would be abusing other people for wearing helmets or abusing them for not wearing helmets

Nigel Garage wrote:

 ..... As always, witty, ascerbic and bang on the money, Peter Hitchens is probably the finest journalist of his generation..... 

Although for many years he lived in the shadow of his brother Christopher, who managed to combine all the above talents with a personality.

mdavidford wrote:

Presumably there's a niche Brompton designed for people who always want to take the most direct route to their destination, no matter what type of terrain lies in the way...

If only there were some way of fitting off-road tyres to a Brompton

chrisonatrike wrote:

Scooters - given the extent that people will go to to avoid active travel (getting licence for car, buying, insuring, fuelling and finding parking for it)

I wonder how many hours the average person spends on the car, whether they would still consider them a benefit.

Hours worked to earn (after tax) the purchase/lease cost, maintenance, fuel, insurance, tyres. Plus time lost in traffic + time cleaning, maintaining, taking for services, MOT etc etc etc. It's probably quite considerable for most people.

Visitors might well come to the conclusion that cars are the masters of people.

I doubt escooters are replacing cars.

Not sure they are that eco friendly.

You do have to buy the right IP rating otherwise they will fail prematurely. I doubt many people even realise this and with the ease of online purchase which fails to even mention any legal usage issues, it won't be clear.

There is a trial where I live, but the data on it is very selective. They are keen to say how many people used it at least once, but I have yet to see figures for folk who have used it more than once or use it once a week.

Pleased to report that the company use an ecargo bike to go around swapping the batteries over !