Residents start petition over parking meters (From Echo)

Does anyone really believe Southend Council will back down on a revenue making opportunity.

Remember, Southend Council are not here to represent the boroughs electorates best wishes.(sad but true!)

It's a public road. The residents do not own it, their ownership ends at their property boundaries. All 'residents only' parking schemes should be scrapped.

If the parking bays are not being used whats wrong with parking meters? Its the same with some of the parking bays outside Chase High school in Prittlewell Chase. Never seen anyone parking in them.
If the council already has to pay someone to make sure its only residents parking, then it wont cost any extra to enforce.

I applaud any move that makes it less likely (more expensive is good enough) that the public highway is used as a free car park.

As an out patient attending SGH it is quite obviousl that the majority of residents parking bays are not occupied in the daytime. Possibly due to residents being at work? This is so annoying to see when trying to find a parking bay. I would agree with the enpty bays being used for pay and display purposes but with a limit on the hours. e.g. Maybe pay and display use of these bays only until 5.00 pm. This will ensure the residents can return to their paid for bay knowing it will be unoccupied.

The council should ban all on street parking in the borough. Roads are the public highway, not public car parks.

Most of the houses have big driveways, the bays are empty in the day. This is actually a good idea but would be better if it was free parking like it used to be!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
It's a public road. The residents do not own it, their ownership ends at their property boundaries. All 'residents only' parking schemes should be scrapped.

Cycle Paths for all! Tw@t

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
It's a public road. The residents do not own it, their ownership ends at their property boundaries. All 'residents only' parking schemes should be scrapped.

I applaud you that is what the petition is about.Parking should be free to everyone.The residents parking scheme is just crazy.There was never a problem parking before the scheme ?

This is ridiculous either everyone in the town pays to park outside their own home or nobody does. get a grip southend - this is a Human Rights issue now surely.

j-w wrote:
Most of the houses have big driveways, the bays are empty in the day. This is actually a good idea but would be better if it was free parking like it used to be!

Thats correct just another form of tax

Bigmama1 wrote:
As an out patient attending SGH it is quite obviousl that the majority of residents parking bays are not occupied in the daytime. Possibly due to residents being at work? This is so annoying to see when trying to find a parking bay. I would agree with the enpty bays being used for pay and display purposes but with a limit on the hours. e.g. Maybe pay and display use of these bays only until 5.00 pm. This will ensure the residents can return to their paid for bay knowing it will be unoccupied.

Why should we have the residents permits scrap them and park for free

jolllyboy wrote:
This is ridiculous either everyone in the town pays to park outside their own home or nobody does. get a grip southend - this is a Human Rights issue now surely.

Dumping your property in a public place for free is a 'human rights' issue? Get a grip.

Thekingofsouthend wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
It's a public road. The residents do not own it, their ownership ends at their property boundaries. All 'residents only' parking schemes should be scrapped.

Cycle Paths for all! Tw@t

While I applaud your call for more cycle paths, I should inform you there's no need to sign your comments.

aduksquack wrote:
The council should ban all on street parking in the borough. Roads are the public highway, not public car parks.

So where is everyone going to park then? Oh how about if I park on your front drive. Idiot.

Parking should be free to everyone No to Meters and no the residents permits and im a resident. there waqas no problem

boyracer21 wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
The council should ban all on street parking in the borough. Roads are the public highway, not public car parks.

So where is everyone going to park then? Oh how about if I park on your front drive. Idiot.

How about you stop poncing off the taxpayer expecting them to pay for your property to be kept on public land?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
It's a public road. The residents do not own it, their ownership ends at their property boundaries. All 'residents only' parking schemes should be scrapped.

I applaud you that is what the petition is about.Parking should be free to everyone.The residents parking scheme is just crazy.There was never a problem parking before the scheme ?

I use a jet pack to get to the hospital so no need for parking but I have scorched the tarmac in the car park which brought me criticism

Let the Home owners use their own drive ways, frees up valuable space for others...

I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

Only £15.00 not to be able to park near your home. A bargain! In reidential streets close to Southend High Street, we pay £85.00 not to be able to park.

Sounds as successful at tackling the problem as the residents scheme in the lower Sutton Road area of Southend.
Used to be full of cars during the day, obviously cars of people working in town or commuting. Drive round there now and the streets are virtually deserted, especially the bit of Sutton Road outside Nicholson House, don't think I've ever seen more than three cars parked in the entire stretch during the day. Appears to have benefited a few residents to the detriment of many, many other local Council Tax payers, oh, and raised a tidy sum for SBC for issuing some bits of paper.

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Lots round here just park on the footpath, keeping the roads clear.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

A two-lane two-way road which is reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along it IS being obstructed.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha
!

Hey can I get a third shed and keep it on the road outside my house? Same principle.
.
I like the system in use in Japan. If you do not have access to a parking space, whether private or rented, then you cannot own a car. That's why small cars go down well there as space is in short supply. When you buy or rent you have no right to your own private space on the road outside where you live. If you want to own a car, then don't expect the state to provide you with somewhere to keep it.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha

!

. if you are a car owner do you not already pay car tax petrol duty etc.So how the hell is storing private property on the highway for free?

2shedsjackson wrote:
Hey can I get a third shed and keep it on the road outside my house? Same principle.
.
I like the system in use in Japan. If you do not have access to a parking space, whether private or rented, then you cannot own a car. That's why small cars go down well there as space is in short supply. When you buy or rent you have no right to your own private space on the road outside where you live. If you want to own a car, then don't expect the state to provide you with somewhere to keep it.

Lol then why pay road tax and petrol duty.Oh i forgot thats to keep revenus up to keep the country on benifits.Parking should be free for all,not another money making scheme

Bernard Fatsack wrote:
I use a jet pack to get to the hospital so no need for parking but I have scorched the tarmac in the car park which brought me criticism

lol

sjbwbg wrote:

2shedsjackson wrote:
Hey can I get a third shed and keep it on the road outside my house? Same principle.
.
I like the system in use in Japan. If you do not have access to a parking space, whether private or rented, then you cannot own a car. That's why small cars go down well there as space is in short supply. When you buy or rent you have no right to your own private space on the road outside where you live. If you want to own a car, then don't expect the state to provide you with somewhere to keep it.

Lol then why pay road tax and petrol duty.Oh i forgot thats to keep revenus up to keep the country on benifits.Parking should be free for all,not another money making scheme

You don't par 'road tax'. No-one pays 'road tax'. It doesn't exist. People paying 'Road tax' to use roads is a myth.

BECAUSE ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED IN 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.

Roads, cycle lanes, and pavements are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot, all of which are also paid by cyclists. Plus 88% of cyclists also drive, so they pay all the same taxes as everyone else. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.

Roads are free for anyone to use for travel, that's why they are called the PUBLIC Highway. In fact pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists have an automatic right to use roads. People in motor vehicles do not have an automatic right, they have to be licensed to say they are competent to safely operate a motor vehicle on the public highway.

sjbwbg wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha


!

. if you are a car owner do you not already pay car tax petrol duty etc.So how the hell is storing private property on the highway for free?

You pay those taxes to use the car, not to use roads.

aduksquack wrote:
The council should ban all on street parking in the borough. Roads are the public highway, not public car parks.

the backsack&crack is back

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha

!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

i missed it all along. the duk is a foaming at the mouth tory. suddenly everything makes sense.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha


!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

Bloody swimmers!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha



!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

But cars are for rich people, surely.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha




!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha





!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

My point is that road congestion is not caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads, and people who have contributed through their taxes to the costs of the roads have also elected governments and councils to decide how those roads are used. One use, decided upon by democratically elected governments and councils, is to provide parking for people who own a car but cannot afford a house with off street parking or a garage. They decide where it is safe to allow parking and, all credit to your tory council, they seem to do that quite well here. They even make some roads one-way so to avoid the problems that you mention. That they choose not to allow you to put your shed in the road is, in my opinion, a good idea. They also allow me to park my bicycle on the pavement, as long as it is not causing an obstruction. Would your tory plan stop that too, so as you can only own a bicycle if you use it to travel from A to B, both of which have private storage facilities, and you are not allowed to stop anywhere on route to use a shop or a toilet unless you can park it on private property. You've got a garden, lucky you, what about people in flats with no garden. You don't care about them, typical tory, I'm all right jack and the rest of you can go jump.

You were right when you said you're not a tory. You are way too right wing to be a tory. Take peoples cars away because they can't afford a big house, and put a million people on the dole, just so so as you can get to your destination a few seconds quicker.

Now I've addressed your points, how about you telling us what your tory boy plans are for all the people who will be made unemployed by your no parking anywhere scheme. You've avoided that question a few times, in the typical tory way.

I think the £30 billion for roads would have been better spent on social housing, hospitals, schools, care for the elderly, and public transport.

All you care about is being able to obstruct the public highway with your private property when you're not using it.

I'm not the tory boy here.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha






!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

My point is that road congestion is not caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads, and people who have contributed through their taxes to the costs of the roads have also elected governments and councils to decide how those roads are used. One use, decided upon by democratically elected governments and councils, is to provide parking for people who own a car but cannot afford a house with off street parking or a garage. They decide where it is safe to allow parking and, all credit to your tory council, they seem to do that quite well here. They even make some roads one-way so to avoid the problems that you mention. That they choose not to allow you to put your shed in the road is, in my opinion, a good idea. They also allow me to park my bicycle on the pavement, as long as it is not causing an obstruction. Would your tory plan stop that too, so as you can only own a bicycle if you use it to travel from A to B, both of which have private storage facilities, and you are not allowed to stop anywhere on route to use a shop or a toilet unless you can park it on private property. You've got a garden, lucky you, what about people in flats with no garden. You don't care about them, typical tory, I'm all right jack and the rest of you can go jump.

You were right when you said you're not a tory. You are way too right wing to be a tory. Take peoples cars away because they can't afford a big house, and put a million people on the dole, just so so as you can get to your destination a few seconds quicker.

Now I've addressed your points, how about you telling us what your tory boy plans are for all the people who will be made unemployed by your no parking anywhere scheme. You've avoided that question a few times, in the typical tory way.

They havent contributed nearly as much as is spent on motorists:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=_NmgCVKK6
cI - here I break down the numbers, references listed from Government depts and research groups.

the duk was just posing as a communist before. really he's a fully paid up member of the blue rinse brigade

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

sjbwbg wrote:

2shedsjackson wrote:
Hey can I get a third shed and keep it on the road outside my house? Same principle.
.
I like the system in use in Japan. If you do not have access to a parking space, whether private or rented, then you cannot own a car. That's why small cars go down well there as space is in short supply. When you buy or rent you have no right to your own private space on the road outside where you live. If you want to own a car, then don't expect the state to provide you with somewhere to keep it.

Lol then why pay road tax and petrol duty.Oh i forgot thats to keep revenus up to keep the country on benifits.Parking should be free for all,not another money making scheme

You don't par 'road tax'. No-one pays 'road tax'. It doesn't exist. People paying 'Road tax' to use roads is a myth.

BECAUSE ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED IN 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.

Roads, cycle lanes, and pavements are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot, all of which are also paid by cyclists. Plus 88% of cyclists also drive, so they pay all the same taxes as everyone else. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.

Roads are free for anyone to use for travel, that's why they are called the PUBLIC Highway. In fact pedestrians, horse riders, and cyclists have an automatic right to use roads. People in motor vehicles do not have an automatic right, they have to be licensed to say they are competent to safely operate a motor vehicle on the public highway.

Yes but Road Tax is so much quicker to say or write! We all know what is meant!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha





!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

No, it is you missing the point. Congestion is not the same as obstruction.
Looking forward to seeing your shed in the road. You are a clown

clownski

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha






!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

No, it is you missing the point. Congestion is not the same as obstruction.
Looking forward to seeing your shed in the road. You are a clown

Read it again, and this time try to comprehend it:

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and CAUSING congestion?

Looking at the sattelite image of roads around the hospital and was wondering what all that green space is opposite the hospital - possibly allotments? Whoever owns that would make a lot of money if they turned it into a car park

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha







!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

No, it is you missing the point. Congestion is not the same as obstruction.
Looking forward to seeing your shed in the road. You are a clown

Read it again, and this time try to comprehend it:

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and CAUSING congestion?

No, it would not be acceptable to leave a shed in the street, because there are laws governing what can be left in the street and those laws allow cars to be parked in the street at various locations and at various times and subject to certain conditions. The question of congestion is considered when our elected representatives decide where and when cars are allowed to be parked.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha







!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

No, it is you missing the point. Congestion is not the same as obstruction.
Looking forward to seeing your shed in the road. You are a clown

Read it again, and this time try to comprehend it:

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and CAUSING congestion?

Why not, somewhere to keep the big shoes and red nose.
A shed is not a car.
Clown.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Wendy, Westcliff wrote:
I live in Westbourne Grove and the majority of the neighbours I have spoken to did not want the restricted parking in the first place - as others have suggested, it seems to be a money-making exercise by the Council. There was no need for it. Where are people supposed to park?

On their own property. If you have nowhere to keep a car without it obstructing the public highway, then don't buy a car.

Parking isn't obstructing the highway. Obstruction is one of the factors considered when the council decide where you can, and can't, park.
Your idea of not owning a car discriminates against the poor, as they are less likely to have off street parking. What have you got against people who can't afford a house with a driveway. You tories are all the same. And you will end up putting loads of workers in car plants out of a job. Typical tory, don't care about anyone, just keep the road empty for you to use and throw the workers on the scrap heap.

I have nothing against anyone. What I am against is the public highway being used to store private property for free. If you want to keep your property on the public highway - and in so doing reducing usefulness of that public highway for others - then you should pay to do so.

If on-street parking was completely banned there would be no need for more and more expensive road schemes.


Oh, and me a tory? Hahahahahahahahahaha








!

I do pay for the public highway, it's called income tax, VAT, corporation tax, NIC, and a zillion other taxes and duties. The same way that my taxes for the cycle lanes, and all the other stuff you tories spend it on.

Now you want no more road schemes, thereby adding roadbuilders and roadmenders to the carmakers you want to put on the dole, and you have the cheek to say you're not a tory. What other political persuasion could you be, that wants to put a million people on the dole just so as you can have an easier ride on the road. You don't think about anyone apart from yourself, typical tory.

I want a public highway that is there for everyone to use regardless of their mode of transport. I want a public highway that is free from parked cars clogging up every street so that society can get moving again.

More road schemes means more cars, more pollution, more deaths, more congestion, more cost to the rest of society. Building roads to ease congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.

It would have made more sense for Osborne to spend £30 billion on house building and public transport than on roads as he is doing (as announced in the 2011 autumn statement).

You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax. Of course they do, almost 90% of people who cycle also drive. When you see someone on their bike they are just as likely to be someone who drives who has chosen not to take their car to the shops this time.

Roads, pavements, bridle paths, cycle provision are all paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT, and every other tax that goes into the central pot. When you see a cyclist using a cycle facility you are not seeing someone using for free something you paid for and cannot use, you are seeing someone using something they and everyone else paid for but which YOU have CHOSEN NOT TO USE.

When you see a seafront tidal swimming pool do you think 'Bloody swimmers using my taxes for free!'

When you see pedestrians do you think 'They didn't pay for that pavement'?

Of course not, they are using facilities paid for by society and put there for all of society to use.

Roads are the same - they are paid for by society for all of society to use - they are not there for one section of society to store their private property for free to the detriment of the rest of society who want to use those roads.

Instead though, you want one section of society - motorists - to have sole use of something we ALL pay for which is there for EVERYONE to use regardless of whether they're walking, cycling, riding a horse or driving a car. Roads are there for ALL of society to freely move about the country, they are NOT there for one section of society to block up with their unused private property to the detriment of everyone else in society.

That, my friend, is socialism, unlike the Tory ideal that only one section of society - motorists - should be catered to.

You said 'You seem to assume people who cycle don't pay tax'. Your assumption about me is incorrect. I am also a cyclist. My taxes also pay for cycle lanes, pavements, swimming pools, and quite right too. But this thread is about roads and cars so why are you trying to change the subject. You are a typical tory, avoiding the point, answering questions that have not been asked, and trying to change the subject.

I see you have avoided the points about only rich people being allowed to own cars under your plan for the roads, and the unemployment that would be caused if your plan was put into practise. Come on tory boy, tell us, what will happen to all those people who will lose their jobs in car manufacturing, in roadbuilding and roadmending. And what about those who will no longer be able to get to work as they cannot own a car under the shoebury cyclist no parking anywhere apart from your own drive directive. What are you going to do next, knock down all the houses belonging to the poor so as you and your tory mates have somewhere to park your cars.

People do not park their cars in the middle of the road, they park at the side of the road, thereby allowing free movement for those who want to drive. I can't think of a street in Southend where I cannot drive (or cycle) purely because of parked cars blocking the road. If parking completely blocked roads then your Tory council would do something about it.

I can only assume you are deliberately ignoring the point: Road congestion is caused by private property being left unused and blocking up public roads.
A two-way two-lane road reduced to a single-lane one-way road because of cars parked along both sides is NOT 'free flowing'.

I stand by my statement, if you do not have somewhere to store YOUR property, don't expect the rest of society to have to store it for you.

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and causing congestion?

No, it is you missing the point. Congestion is not the same as obstruction.
Looking forward to seeing your shed in the road. You are a clown

Read it again, and this time try to comprehend it:

If I didn't have a garden would be ok to buy a shed and leave it in the street outside my home reducing the road width and CAUSING congestion?

Why not, somewhere to keep the big shoes and red nose.
A shed is not a car.
Clown.

Good grief. Ok I'll spell it out for you:

An unused car left dumped on the public highway restricts the road width and causes as much congestion as if a shed was dumped in the gutter.


Got it now?


You really are not very intelligent are you.

You’re off on the wrong point yet again. This story is about LEGALLY PARKING cars, not dumping them, or sheds. You have used two different words in your comments to try and get your point over (whatever that may actually be) You used ‘obstruction’ but when it was pointed out that was the wrong word, you started using ‘congestion’
Happy to discuss and indeed concede any point, but don’t go off on a tangent and change the parameters as soon as you’re on the back foot as it makes an intelligent discussion rather difficult.

stopmoaning1 wrote:
You’re off on the wrong point yet again. This story is about LEGALLY PARKING cars, not dumping them, or sheds. You have used two different words in your comments to try and get your point over (whatever that may actually be) You used ‘obstruction’ but when it was pointed out that was the wrong word, you started using ‘congestion’
Happy to discuss and indeed concede any point, but don’t go off on a tangent and change the parameters as soon as you’re on the back foot as it makes an intelligent discussion rather difficult.

Happy to discuss, but you have to use your brain cells and comprehend the written word:

An unused car - left dumped parked stored - on the public highway restricts the road width. This narrower road width means two cars can no longer pass on a two-way two-lane road, so the two-way two-lane road has become a single lane one-way road, and that causes as much congestion as if a shed was dumped in the gutter.


I can't make it any simpler for you to understand.

Yes parked cars may cause some congestion, even those legally parked as in this case. But if legally parked, they don't cause an obstruction which is what your earlier comments concentrated on before you changed tack.

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Yes parked cars may cause some congestion, even those legally parked as in this case. But if legally parked, they don't cause an obstruction which is what your earlier comments concentrated on before you changed tack.

So you think traffic somehow magically passes through 'legally' parked cars that are blocking and obstructing most of the road width?

Legal or illegal, cars parked on streets reducing the street width ARE obstructing traffic and ARE causing congestion.

He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

don't make the mistake of assuming he has a sense of humour.

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Tolerance towards others Jerry. If the cars are legally parked we have to be mellow and understand that we may have to take turns. Obstruction by illegally parked cars or sheds is a bit different.
This story isn’t about road congestion though, or have you forgotten that.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Yes, and your answer to congestion is to put a million people on the dole.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Yes, and your answer to congestion is to put a million people on the dole.

Your answer to congestion is more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion…

Stop spending money on roads, make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it.

£30BILLION wasted on roads in the last two years. That would have been better spent on improving public transport, health care, education etc.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote: He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse. Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Yes, and your answer to congestion is to put a million people on the dole.

Your answer to congestion is more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion… Stop spending money on roads, make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it. £30BILLION wasted on roads in the last two years. That would have been better spent on improving public transport, health care, education etc.

and the councils answer is create a problem, raise some money, create another problem, raise some more money. Both parking meter and residents permit schemes should be scrapped. People should return to sensible free use of the available space. If someone obstructs the road that is a matter for a police tow truck not a council parking fine.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Yes, and your answer to congestion is to put a million people on the dole.

Your answer to congestion is more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion…

Stop spending money on roads, make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it.

£30BILLION wasted on roads in the last two years. That would have been better spent on improving public transport, health care, education etc.

There you go again tory boy, 'make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it'. So stop the poor owning cars, the only way many of them can get to work. You really don't care about anyone apart from your self. What else do you want to cost the real price, health care, public transport and education by the sounds of it, do you have investments in those areas which is why you want the government to put 30 billion into them, so you can cream off the profits.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Yes, and your answer to congestion is to put a million people on the dole.

Your answer to congestion is more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion…

Stop spending money on roads, make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it.

£30BILLION wasted on roads in the last two years. That would have been better spent on improving public transport, health care, education etc.

There you go again tory boy, 'make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it'. So stop the poor owning cars, the only way many of them can get to work. You really don't care about anyone apart from your self. What else do you want to cost the real price, health care, public transport and education by the sounds of it, do you have investments in those areas which is why you want the government to put 30 billion into them, so you can cream off the profits.

No, stop the poor paying for cars they do not own. More people walk, use buses and trains than drive. Why should those people be subsidising privately owned cars to the tune of over £600 per person every year?

Make drivers pay for the damage they cost. Invest the money in decent public transport, healthcare, education, care for the elderly and disabled.

But no, you tories only care about yourselves and your precious cars.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:
He he, this is so much fun, like a cat with a mouse.

Why are so upset about something that doesn't concern you. Unless you forgot to mention you need to park in that road for a reason and can't because of the residents parking. And back to the article. Bit like a Ronnie Corbett story wasn't it.

Traffic congestion concerns everyone.

Yes, and your answer to congestion is to put a million people on the dole.

Your answer to congestion is more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion, more money wasted on roads, more cars, more pollution, more congestion…

Stop spending money on roads, make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it.

£30BILLION wasted on roads in the last two years. That would have been better spent on improving public transport, health care, education etc.

There you go again tory boy, 'make car ownership cost the real price instead of subsidising it'. So stop the poor owning cars, the only way many of them can get to work. You really don't care about anyone apart from your self. What else do you want to cost the real price, health care, public transport and education by the sounds of it, do you have investments in those areas which is why you want the government to put 30 billion into them, so you can cream off the profits.

No, stop the poor paying for cars they do not own. More people walk, use buses and trains than drive. Why should those people be subsidising privately owned cars to the tune of over £600 per person every year?

Make drivers pay for the damage they cost. Invest the money in decent public transport, healthcare, education, care for the elderly and disabled.

But no, you tories only care about yourselves and your precious cars.

How much are cyclists subsidised? They use the same roads.
Then there are train passengers, their fares are subsidised. The cost of the service for someone buying a £3,000 season ticket from Shoebury to Fenchurch St is about £4,5000, so they are being subsidised to the tune of £1,500 a year.
Healthcare, how much is that subsidised? How about 100 percent. And now your tory government want to sell it off by the back door, so of course you want more money put into it, so as you and your tory boy mates can make even more from selling it off.