RBS on verge of plans to extend car park of Southend base

Echo: The packed car park at the RBS site The packed car park at the RBS site

YEARS of parking problems for residents living near a major banking headquarters could be about to end.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is believed to be on the verge of submitting plans to expand the car park at its base in Thanet Grange, Southend, to stop staff clogging up surrounding streets with their cars.

Despite employing more than 2,500 people, the site currently has spaces for just 770 vehicles, leaving many residents frustrated about the number of cars diverted to their roads during the day.

Mark Flewitt, a Tory councillor for the area, said he was delighted with this news.

He added: “This has been a long, long effort to try to get something changed for the benefit of the people who live here.

“I think RBS deserves to be praised for the positive attitude it has taken towards this, because it has become a real issue for residents.

“We have cars parked up to 15 or 20 minutes walk away, which is a big area to be affected.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

can they afford it?
can they afford it? Cosmo Spring

12:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

howironic says...

'Banking Headquarters'

Really? and there was me thinking the HQ was in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh.
'Banking Headquarters' Really? and there was me thinking the HQ was in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. howironic

1:28pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person. Shoebury_Cyclist

1:31pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

they should extend it vertically
they should extend it vertically Cosmo Spring

1:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Ian P says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person. Ian P

2:09pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Rochford Rob says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
They do, but without incentives IIRC.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]They do, but without incentives IIRC. Rochford Rob

2:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13

j-w says...

Car sharing, they do that already, they meet up after parking their cars in a nearby road and share the journey from there to RBS in one car!
Car sharing, they do that already, they meet up after parking their cars in a nearby road and share the journey from there to RBS in one car! j-w

2:56pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Druggie Scumbag says...

j-w wrote:
Car sharing, they do that already, they meet up after parking their cars in a nearby road and share the journey from there to RBS in one car!
Bankers!
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: Car sharing, they do that already, they meet up after parking their cars in a nearby road and share the journey from there to RBS in one car![/p][/quote]Bankers! Druggie Scumbag

3:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

So basically it will cost the tax payer.
So basically it will cost the tax payer. Keptquiettillnow

3:57pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
round here it's generally baby buggies....
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]round here it's generally baby buggies.... Cosmo Spring

4:01pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment. Shoebury_Cyclist

4:09pm Thu 28 Feb 13

OldSmokey says...

Cosmo Spring wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
round here it's generally baby buggies....
Wouldn't it be nice for pedestrians to be able to use the footpath without being accosted by bl**dy cyclists. I think it's ludicrous we have to give up "our space " to these law breakers. Perhaps they should buy tandems so they can bike share!!!
[quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]round here it's generally baby buggies....[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it be nice for pedestrians to be able to use the footpath without being accosted by bl**dy cyclists. I think it's ludicrous we have to give up "our space " to these law breakers. Perhaps they should buy tandems so they can bike share!!! OldSmokey

4:19pm Thu 28 Feb 13

firedog says...

Cosmo Spring wrote:
can they afford it?
Can we afford it?
[quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: can they afford it?[/p][/quote]Can we afford it? firedog

4:42pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Katejm says...

They do do car sharing, however this is not possible for all staff, as many work different shift patterns each week, others are on a fixed pattern, some work part time and have to go straight to and from school to work. So for many this is not an option. The only reason the car park is not big enough at present was purely down to the council planners imposing restrictions to the number of parking places they would allow.
They do do car sharing, however this is not possible for all staff, as many work different shift patterns each week, others are on a fixed pattern, some work part time and have to go straight to and from school to work. So for many this is not an option. The only reason the car park is not big enough at present was purely down to the council planners imposing restrictions to the number of parking places they would allow. Katejm

4:59pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Dinosaur_Jr says...

RBS does (or at least did) run a car sharing scheme whereby if you wanted to use the car park, you had to be part of the car sharing scheme and have multiple occupancy of the vehicle on arrival. This was strictly enforced with spot checks.

However, this had the knock on effect of causing staff who could or wouldn't car share to park on the surrounding roads whilst the car park was barely 75% full. Thus creating another problem.

In my opinion Southend Hospital has a good example of a low impact muti-storey car park. I obviously don't know how the financials would work out for this style of development, but it would surely be better than using up more land (although RBS did give up part of their car park for the new road linking Aviation Way).
RBS does (or at least did) run a car sharing scheme whereby if you wanted to use the car park, you had to be part of the car sharing scheme and have multiple occupancy of the vehicle on arrival. This was strictly enforced with spot checks. However, this had the knock on effect of causing staff who could or wouldn't car share to park on the surrounding roads whilst the car park was barely 75% full. Thus creating another problem. In my opinion Southend Hospital has a good example of a low impact muti-storey car park. I obviously don't know how the financials would work out for this style of development, but it would surely be better than using up more land (although RBS did give up part of their car park for the new road linking Aviation Way). Dinosaur_Jr

5:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

OldSmokey wrote:
Cosmo Spring wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
round here it's generally baby buggies....
Wouldn't it be nice for pedestrians to be able to use the footpath without being accosted by bl**dy cyclists. I think it's ludicrous we have to give up "our space " to these law breakers. Perhaps they should buy tandems so they can bike share!!!
I think the real danger to pedestrians is all the cars parked on pavements in Southend. Creating a hazard for pedestrians, the disabled, blind people, mothers with children i buggies...
[quote][p][bold]OldSmokey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]round here it's generally baby buggies....[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it be nice for pedestrians to be able to use the footpath without being accosted by bl**dy cyclists. I think it's ludicrous we have to give up "our space " to these law breakers. Perhaps they should buy tandems so they can bike share!!![/p][/quote]I think the real danger to pedestrians is all the cars parked on pavements in Southend. Creating a hazard for pedestrians, the disabled, blind people, mothers with children i buggies... Shoebury_Cyclist

6:22pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Nebs says...

This shows in its real light what will happen to policies T2 and T3 on the London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan. They will be a waste of money. Money that would be better spent on bigger car parks because that is how people choose to travel to work. It is cheaper than paying to park at the station and then paying train fares, it is more convenient than cycling, although when the roads are gridlocked from all the extra traffic that may change, and buses in this area are a non starter for anyone working early or late.

http://rochford.jdi-
consult.net/jaap/rea
ddoc.php?docid=187&c
hapter=4&docelemid=d
26926#d26926
This shows in its real light what will happen to policies T2 and T3 on the London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan. They will be a waste of money. Money that would be better spent on bigger car parks because that is how people choose to travel to work. It is cheaper than paying to park at the station and then paying train fares, it is more convenient than cycling, although when the roads are gridlocked from all the extra traffic that may change, and buses in this area are a non starter for anyone working early or late. http://rochford.jdi- consult.net/jaap/rea ddoc.php?docid=187&c hapter=4&docelemid=d 26926#d26926 Nebs

6:48pm Thu 28 Feb 13

How-ironic says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars How-ironic

7:03pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
[quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:33pm Thu 28 Feb 13

How-ironic says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems. How-ironic

8:04pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.
And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?
[quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.[/p][/quote]And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters? Shoebury_Cyclist

10:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13

How-ironic says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.
And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?
I couldn't really give a toss to be honest
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.[/p][/quote]And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?[/p][/quote]I couldn't really give a toss to be honest How-ironic

6:53am Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.
And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?
I couldn't really give a toss to be honest
Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.
[quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.[/p][/quote]And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?[/p][/quote]I couldn't really give a toss to be honest[/p][/quote]Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:33am Fri 1 Mar 13

howironic says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.
And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?
I couldn't really give a toss to be honest
Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.
Not at all, as far as I'm aware there is no argument, or maybe there was in your little mind. I will now leave you to get on with it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.[/p][/quote]And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?[/p][/quote]I couldn't really give a toss to be honest[/p][/quote]Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.[/p][/quote]Not at all, as far as I'm aware there is no argument, or maybe there was in your little mind. I will now leave you to get on with it. howironic

10:25am Fri 1 Mar 13

Hathi67 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
How-ironic wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.
You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.
Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.
So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars
I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.
I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.
And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?
I couldn't really give a toss to be honest
Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.
Very well put Shoebury_Cyclist :-)
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]How-ironic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.[/p][/quote]You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.[/p][/quote]Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.[/p][/quote]So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars[/p][/quote]I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.[/p][/quote]And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?[/p][/quote]I couldn't really give a toss to be honest[/p][/quote]Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.[/p][/quote]Very well put Shoebury_Cyclist :-) Hathi67

12:33pm Fri 1 Mar 13

How-ironic says...

Lol not at all, it's obvious you're unable to have a debate, it's always got to be an argument when someone doesn't share the same opinion.
Lol not at all, it's obvious you're unable to have a debate, it's always got to be an argument when someone doesn't share the same opinion. How-ironic

12:50pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

I use argument to mean part two of the definition:

ar·gu·ment
/ˈärgyəmənt/
Noun
1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
I use argument to mean part two of the definition: ar·gu·ment /ˈärgyəmənt/ Noun 1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father". 2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. Shoebury_Cyclist

8:56pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour? Nebs

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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