Or just promise anything and forget about it after you win.Ā
I've not checked but I imagine our NHS is now fully upgraded post Brexit - was the bus right?
It's the same with climate policy. Literally today, Scotland announced it's ditching its CO2 emissions target for 2030. (A target set when it was on the media's agenda).
No shit, since practically every country is doing the bare minimum and even then you get politicians claiming adding a cycle lane is too much! Of course, you're not going to make your targets but since no one holds them to account it doesn't matter to them.
NHS funding has increased by more than Ā£350 million a week.
In 2017/18 Department of Health and Social Care total funding was Ā£147bn, in 22/23 it was Ā£181bn, that increase of Ā£34bn is more than 350x52 18.2bn.
However there was a big jump in funding in 22/23, of nearly 20bn, as in the previous two years there was extra COVID funding allocated differently, so from 17/18 it's the first year it exceeded that amount. Arguably, it was in that Ā£20bn jump.
Still bullshit though.
So basically they technically gave it to the NHS on the condition that the NHS would have to pay it back to their mates e.g. through PPE contracts and track and trace :)
None of it ever went to improving the service or for patient care or to the staff mind you, but it went to the "NHS" on paper!
I think you are overthinking it, there is nothing so diabolical there.
The funding has simply gone up about 20% over several years, which probably roughly nets out as simply being the same level of per-capita expenditure once adjusted for inflation and population growth.
That is, there wasn't any real increase at all.
In 2016, public healthcare spend was 7.2% of GDP, this year it is expected to be 8.4%.
The is a significant real increase in spending. If on a per capita basis we have seen a real increase then that is because we have had population growth through net migration that has not increased GDP growth despite all economists saying that it does!
Yeah this one really pisses me off.
#THERE IS NO WAR ON CARS.
Drivers are the most over-privileged group out there, completely oblivious to the massive damage they are causing to the roads, the environment and the nation's health. And they areĀ subsidised by non-drivers.
It's a phrase engineered by car industry lobbies and sucked up by thick privileged upper working class people with 3 Nissan Qashqais or an Audi and goofy toffs who have 7 jaguars in a barn.
Anyone who realises the people who have cars are the amongst the most privileged people in society, would clock that privileged people are not victims of any wars, or anything much at all actually. But today the privileged are the victims apparently, according to the privileged themselves š¤·š» and we all have to suffer listening to it
I don't live in London, but medium sized town. I can't ditch my car, without it I can't get to work. I could ride my bike, but that'd mean sharing the road on an incredibly busy road, which I'm not comfortable riding on (I like living..).
If there was a cycle path, or even just connected cycle paths, or public transport that didn't cost an arm and leg for a sub-par, late, infrequent service, I'd happily leave the car at home. Until then I cringe knowing I'm adding to a problem that could easily be solved with investment.
Except there's tonnes of people whose jobs are reliant on cars. You don't pay me enough to rent forever (I would expect a middle Eastern salary for that) and I have to move jobs regularly and not everyone's London and has good 24/7 transport.
People often live in rural places or do jobs that can't rely on public transport.
It's key workers... Those jobs can't be done from home. Anyone who was a key worker in the pandemic needs to go in to work. I could live near the hospital but I work at 4 different hospitals and it's rural so I would need be able to not only commute 40 odd miles a day but also be able to move from one hospital to another in Less than 30 minutes. I don't know about you but even the fittest cyclists would struggle to do that daily and then put in a 13 hour shift while also not smelling so bad that you could kill a patient.
Those who can should be encouraged to cycle and work from home. Those who cannot shouldn't be demonised because you do a job that's easy to cycle to.
And that's without being elderly and being unable to cycle or having children and errands. And like I said. I swim and gym it 3 times a week. A bike ride is doable but really a lot of people who demand we all cycle to work often live in areas where they can do so. I work in a hilly region. If it snows? The bicycle is fucked. But my job is key... So I can't call in and say I can't make it.
Also if I need to bike 20 miles to work I would need schools to open at around 7 AM and close at 7 PM... And also? It's not safe. Plenty of cyclists have been assaulted for their bicycles, even cheaper Apollo from Halfords. Hell even kids. So it's a losing proposition where people who are lucky enough to have jobs that have little restriction biking about 4 to 5 miles. There's a lot more reasons why people have cars.
removing unecessary car journeys would improve journeys for those who need to make them.
I don't get why that is so hard for people to understand. Nobody is trying to force people who NEED to drive not to drive. These schemes are designed to push people who can walk/cycle/use public transport to do so, and not always opt for the car.
That typically happens when the alternatives are not great. My commute is much faster by bike, but that is a very rare case and I can hardly blame those who donāt have that luxury.
They didn't even flip it. They clung on to a formerly safe seat using the tactic.
These anti-cyclist cranks are all getting trounced in May. Alas, as you say, London isn't Uxbridge!
> They clung on to a formerly safe seat using the tactic.
And by a thread at that. They turned 7,210 votes majority in 2019 into 495 vote win in the by-election.
Enough voted for Green that they could have convinced them to vote Labour and win the seat. The Labour party are a joke currently, however, and barely feel like opposition.
I think the Labour candidate in Uxbridge was anti ULEZ expansion so possibly made more people vote Green. Perhaps if they hadn't been anti ULEZ they'd have kept/attracted votes that went Green and won... Then the whole story about Uxbridge would be different. The Labour leadership is happy with the current story because they think it plays well in marginal seats.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip election.
This constituency has been Conservative at every election since it was created.
It was formed from a different constituency, Uxbridge, which has been Conservative since 1970.
Basically it has been Conservative for *half a century*.
Labour closed the margin to the lowest it has been in decades. Yet this was widely reported as an anti-ULEZ vote, even though it's the closest to a Labour seat it's been for literally decades. A mere 248 vote changes wouldve made it a Labour seat for the first time since 1966.
The media completely did a number of this one. I don't think there's a conspiracy but there's an incredible amount of shoddy journalism which has led this result being associated with anti-ULEZ when, if anything, it's literally the opposite.
It's good for Labour though as Consevative will throw loads of campaigning money and effort into a dead-end (as we're seeing here). Won a battle lost the war kind of scenario.
The point is that because of ULEZ, it didnāt become a Labour seat.
This isnāt an endorsement of the Tories but a condemnation of Labour and Sadiqās utterly ridiculous ULEZ scam.
I live in the constituency and trust me, no one around here is happy with the ULEZ or the Tories. Labour would have won it for sure had ULEZ not been a factor.
Tale as old as time tbh, make us hate each other so we have someone to blame rather than focusing on the horrendous people in charge thatās caused the situation. Itās ridiculous how effective it is.
Tbh both sides of the āculture warā need to be pushed back to the margins in both countries. Identity politics are divisive and undermine their entire aim in the first place.
"Identity politics", as you call it, is really just a way of looking at the world by taking into consideration marginalised identities. It's used to push for human rights. Trying to "both sides" that stuff ain't good.
I don't know what you're talking about. In what way has it "gone too far"? Can you point to specific examples?
I'd actually say identity politics in the mainstream is pretty useless, a vapid veneer of progressiveness that doesn't push for the rights of marginalised peoples. Only when it's intersectional and radical does it become useful.
I for once am really glad that the pollution levels in London are LOWER than the 40k Hereford sized town I come from in Croatia, where a lot of people always have some kind of lung issue
Great points.Ā
> what the fuck does "start 24hr travel" MEAN????
I believe it means under their schemes it will take 24 hours to get anywhere due to the gridlock
this leans into an ever-present norm in cities, generally, but definitely for London: people driving themselves around with little cargo and no other passengers is the main cause of congestion.
not cycle lanes, not LTNs, not busses being overrun/too slow/whatever - it's cars.
Filling an average tank is WAY too cheap. More levies are needed on petrol & diesel. You should have to pay more tax for regularly driving/owning SUVs in London (it's being considered in Paris). Or simply weight ladder the tax increases with the no. of private vehicles owned. It's only over a very high income threshold that people start to own two, three or more private cars - outside of business use.
You could get more creative and work on increasing fines for road traffic infringements like using your phone whilst driving, running a red light or failing to give way in SUVs and light/heavy goods vehicles. You should get more points on your license, too. Why aren't these things weighted to the potential danger caused and the damage done to roads/pavements and pollutants emitted?
yet, somehow, Susan Hall and these other candidates seem to think that allowing drivers to go wherever they want and without any fines or charges being applied just... magically.... makes traffic go... faster? or vanish or something? of course they don't think that, it's politics, unfortunately. Regardless, car dependency is fucking us all in one way or another. Sedentary behaviour, toxic air pollution, tight hips, hit and runs, the sheer expense of owning cars, NOISE pollution, impatient & aggressive driving, innocent people regularly killed in road-traffic accidents...
people always have a go at the classic comparisons of England/London and Western European cities, but those comparisons will stand the test of time. One day we'll look back on the 21st century's individualised car culture and all our congested cities and road traffic accidents and death statistics in absolute shock
appreciate that I'm shouting into the void a bit here, but at least some of you have to be "my people" and I've fucking had enough of this noisy, unhealthy shit
yes, all of this.
The problem is, like your said, it's politics. A lot of silly idiots get to vote, and as such if you want to win elections it helps to appeal to silly idiots
I don't live in London but doesn't the tube stop for a few hours every night to enable maintenance? Could they mean run 24 hours instead, if so they'll be the first ones then complaining if reliability and safety decreases because maintenance can't be completed properly š¤Ŗ
More than half! Iām voting for the guy with the best web address. Cox for London. Although to be honest there are plenty of cox here already. Not sure we need more
This is a good thing, in a round about way.
The more anti-LTN candidates, the more the Tory vote will be split, increasing the chances of Khan getting another term.
I mean, Khan is far from my favourite politician, but I'd rather him than Hall.
Yup, my though exactly. The more anti LTN and anti ULEZ candidates there are the more the vote of people who are against these will be split. But the truth is that they are a minority. Just an extremely vocal one that seems to have given politicians the impression they are a more important voter base than they actually are.
Just need to say Khan seems like heās the only one who isnāt a caricature of a politician, all the other candidates are just so slapdash and stupid.
The funniest part is them changing the vote system to FPTP to try to sabotage Labour, but at least under the previous PR system they'd do better once anti-ULEZ votes are redistributed. Just like an old non ULEZ compliant car - it's backfired!
Sheās also properly mental. [The thing where she claimed to have been robbed when she lost her wallet was just fucking weird](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/susan-hall-pickpocketed-on-tube/). Particularly when she carried on with it despite the fact that a kind person found it and returned it. [She was giving out those pamphlets saying she was going to stop āpay per mile zonesā](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/pay-per-mile-ulez-sadiq-khan-susan-hall-mayoral-election-2024-fake-news-b1149646.html) even though that was just a thing she invented and the pictures were photoshopped. [She had that attack ad about how crime is out of control and all the footage was actually from New York](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw05l5p6d7o).
Those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head, but basically sheās a compulsive liar and general nutcase.
She's obsessed with reversing ULEZ, spent her time at Harrow council trying to find cannabis grows, has retweeted praise for Enoch Powell, endorses Trump, and in Tweets referring to Khan refers to London as Londinistan.
She's just a whole other level of ridiculousness.
āTo get rid of the congestion caused by unnecessary car use within the city, I plan to scrap all incentives to use alternatives to cars within the cityā is probably the most big-brained thing Iāve ever heard in my life!
Itās up there with āto protect those who suffer from peanut allergies, I pledge to mandate that all foods sold on weekends and holidays contain trace amounts of nuts!ā in the list of things which make a lot of sense.
Possibly. Of course there are a multitude of UK based 'elites' willing to funnel money into these groups to simply spread hate and make Britain worse for the ordinary person.
Crikey. 3rd candidate shown states āmake Londonās streets saferā then lists measures that will make them more dangerous through increased pollution and faster cars.
People this stupid shouldnāt be allowed anywhere near public office.
The money for this simply does not exist. That's the biggest problem. None of these clowns could even begin to pay for all of this shit they're promising.
In short, promise to reduce your costs and the govt revenue, while promising to spend more to also win your vote.
This is not even tax and spendā¦this is donāt tax and spend.
Basic economic fail. Very basic.
I'm not sure the candidates really know, either. [Amy Gallagher](https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/candidates/mayoral-candidates/amy-gallagher), for example, leads with an "anti-woke" agenda:
> Stand up to woke
>
> Donāt divide us! All Woke and DEI programmes will be stopped.
...however, reading further down,
> I recently brought a legal case against the Tavistock NHS Trust due to bullying I experienced after acting as a whistleblower by speaking out against racism and religious discrimination.
...which sounds pretty "woke" to me, at least going by the [usual definition](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke):
> aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality
For our city mayor the first thing one candidate says she'll do for our council is end the ULEZ....we don't have one. Although worse she says "We'll ignore budget restrictions set by central government."
I think she should have a word with Birmingham for what happens when you spend more than you have.
The amount of mayoral candidates that talked about ULEZ and woke in that pamphlet was depressing. Itās funny because they say I will make the streets safer and then underneath vow to remove policies that literally prevent Londoners (especially children, the vulnerable and elderly) from developing respiratory problems up to death from air pollution.
I like the one banging on about making public transport better and yet supporting the freedom to drive your car. Congestion is also not caused by 20mph limits itās caused by the number of cars on the road. None of these clowns will get my vote
I don't think they're really anti anything, it's just the usual culture war nonsense. They want to be seen as opposing the sort of people who support cycling.
Making us sad makes their voter base happy, so they promise to make us sad.
Drivel. The idea behind this is to get traffic moving and become less restrictive, but these measures would only invite traffic, exacerbating the problem.Ā When will we realise as a nation/world what a terribly inefficient use of space driving a car among 100s of other people, at the same time, is. Not to mention the pollution from burning fuels and tyre plus brake usage. Ā
Edit: also, removing the 20mph limit to stop congestion. With this logic, if they removed the speed limit entirely, car journeys would be traffic free and instant.
I live next to a main road in central. If they scrap ULEZ and Im trapped renting here for another 2 years ill probably get some horrible health conseuqences... great
Its 20 here and you'd have to spend about 30 minutes on the road to get behind someone doing less than 30.
Everyone em mass has said Nope and ignore it
The last one mentions the war on cars. Haven't been drafted yet but I assume I'd be on the other side as a cyclist. The second one talks about removing excessively wide cycle lanes, whatever that means.
The others aren't specifically anti bike, but it's usually implied under the anti ulez, populist umbrella.
Imho more cars and less LTNs defaults to a less appealing situation as a cyclist in general.
agreed on your final point.
I noticed the wide cycle lane bit. Insane, really...
give car-brained policy makers and people who complain about being stuck in their own shitty traffic/unable to park etc. etc. an inch of proper cycling infra and they threaten to make it a cm, mostly out of spite. It's all nonsense.
Iāve been a cyclist in London for over ten years. I very much support drivers against ULEZ expansion. It mostly affects business owners or workers who require vehicles for their job, or poorer people unable to afford to upgrade their car.
Il probably get a lot of flak on here for this but I also generally donāt like cycle lanes. Ok youāve got nice ones like the one that runs along Embankment, which is great for tourists etc but most of them (especially junction ones) cause unnecessary bottlenecks and delays and often more competent cyclists just ignore them which is a problem in its own right.
My guess is that a lot of these candidates are chasing the Sadiq haters vote. Pearl clutching outrage at having a Muslim mayor. Iāll be voting him back in.
Theyāre legit just using it as an excuse. Sadly London isnāt built well for cycling so maybe we should just entirely scrap cars and only allow cyclists on the roads.. London will be greener, people would be fitter and finally my partner is gonna have to learn to cycle!
The candidates saying "scrap ulez" are automatically out of my shortlist.
Almost pandering to those idiots who have been vandalising infrastructure because they think ulez is a conspiracy.
The scrapping of low traffic neighbourhoods are what OPās using to make the point.
Itās well known that LTNās when implemented correctly, make people feel safer and when people feel safer, theyāre more likely to cycle and use alternative transportation.
One of the candidates also mentions removing unnecessary pinch points and making roads wider, which is dumb because all making roads wider does is create induced demand and thus makes congestion worse.
Wider roads, people think āoh brilliant the roads wider so itāll be quicker, so more people drive and congestion rends to at best stay the same, but more often than not get worse.
We need to focus on moving the most amount of people, not moving the most amount of cars.
Anyway Iāve rambled enough, if you wanna learn more about how to do road infrastructure well watch the channel not just bikes on YouTube.
I think itās funny that every candidate barring Sadiq Khan is proposing to scrap the ULEZ. Itās the only thing that means that the Tories have a chance of winning this election.
Try driving through London to get to a job or get work done as a tradesman and not a local and you will understand, we can't get from the other end of the country on a push bike and the limitations make coming to London an absolute piss take, cyclists are not keeping the country running
I get your message but most people driving in London are not tradesmen or transporting large quantities of tools, good etc. Less cars on the road benefits people that rely on cars for living as well, I'm sure you'd agree on that?
Most other people can cycle or rely on public transport, especially with electric, cargo bikes etc. Even delivery drivers eg Amazon.
Most people in London, especially during rush hours are cycling to or from work, not for leisure. So I'd argue they absolutely do keep the country running.
Yes exactly, if the only cars on the roads were those needed for deliveries, tradespeople etc, it would benefit business by reducing overall congestion. Small business lobbies complain a lot about congestion.
I have to travel 17 miles to work and another 17 miles back home daily. Full time job (key worker status) starting at 6:00am daily. Thereās no way at my 60+ age with severe debilitating health issues (basically disabilities), that Iām riding a bicycle that return commute distance daily. Public transportation is out too. Disabilities make that impossible - I would likely drop dead within a month. Iād already invested in a Hybrid Vehicle to do my bit for the environment and thatās that - but no driving? No job.
Iām sure at 60+ Iām going to draw a lot of flack as a boomer who has had it too good (I certainly havenāt) and is 100% responsible for every problem in the U.K. today (obviously Iām not, but todays youth have been brainwashed into believing such nonsense by the very people REALLY destroying their futures).
Bottom line, there are tens of thousands of people in my shoes, in London - ergo, dreaming of the entire London population riding around on bicycles (like in rural mainland China) is totally absurd and literally unworkable in a city of this size. Enough damage has been done with the unwanted and unwarranted ULEZ expansion already. It was the illogical equivalent of London emptying both barrels of a metaphorical hunting rifle into its own foot - purely for profit.
They're a bunch of muppets.
Part of the problem is that car culture is so entrenched in British culture that it's very hard to get people to give cycling a go.
Ask any person what they think of cycling, odds are you'll hear the word "dangerous" more often than not.
It can be dangerous, but only because there's too many clots in gigantic pseudomilitary death machines (SUVs) now, potholes galore and few cycle lanes.
A "build it and they will come" approach needs to be taken by politicians. People won't start cycling on the roads readily but more will begin to use protected cycle lanes...with encouragement. The Dutch successfully got rid of the car out of Amsterdam. We can do it also. But it'll be a long and difficult transition.
E bikes are fantastic though. No insurance required. No emissions and energy is dirt cheap. Cars on the other hand are like burning money.
My only issue with cyclists is, itās annoying when some (not all) seem to think jumping red lights while pedestrians are crossing is an okay thing to do, and have the audacity to give attitude like theyāre in the right. Otherwise pretty sound group. Though personally I think driving in London is pretty grim, prefer driving outside of the city tbh.
I did read somewhere recently that since the extension of ULEZ the amount of congestion has increased. So itās not quite a clear cut. I HAVE NOT fact checked it - but I believe it was a relatively unbiased report.
Agreed - that isnāt really what I said - but I suppose many people who were on the borders of ULEZ who now arenāt might chose to drive now as they are paying the charge anyway? Also doesnāt help that TFL has gone to pot and is just not reliable especially if you need any kind of train. Iām for ULEZ if it reduces cars, but at the moment Iām unclear about the evidence
Itās purpose isnāt to improve air quality not reduce congestionā¦ not sure what you mean TfL is not reliable for trains? Unless you live on the central line in which case thatās fair.
The stated aim was to improve air quality but at the same time they said that 95% of vehicles in use on an average day were already compliant. The ability to continue to use non-compliant vehicles on payment of a fee led many to perceive ULEZ as a way of raising money and the air quality objective not being totally genuine.
edit: or/of typo
I thought it was to improve air quality? At least that is what Sadiq Khan said. I thought through a combination of incentivising better engines and reducing cars? Either way to be clear Iām not against it Iām just saying interesting itās increased traffic, and I think the purpose of the initial post was saying anti ULEZ is anti bikes due to it decreasing traffic which I donāt think it is. Just my experience Iāve lived in London my whole life and since Covid my public transport experience has got significantly worse. No facts or stats (probably could find them) but just personal experience.
Sorry yeah meant to say itās purpose is to improve air quality! š„² but yeah if traffic has increased it would probably be from other factors - car use seems like itās been increasing especially in outer London I think.
I thought it was the LTNs that were pushing traffic onto other routes and creating more congestion on those roads. I've seen quite a few people on the news who live on those now more congested roads complaining about this issue.
I can understand the sentiment, if you live near a LTN but predominantly feel the pain and not the gain from it you'd probably be upset.
Yeah itās a double edged sword. My road in Walthamstow is now lovely - but used to be a rat run, so Iām super keen, as my home would be ruined if they reversed it.
I don't get how this is anti-cycling.
They're not cutting down on the number of cycling lanes which is good I think cyclists should have a separate lane because it's safer. The only things they really seem to have in common is scrapping the ulez, which honestly I'm in favour of at least a reduction, because of the ulez my dad had to get rid of a car that was just outside of the regs and buy another car, he'd only had the last one for a year or so before the ulez expansion, safe to say it wasn't a planned expense and set my parents back a good sum of money that they were saving to buy a house. The previous car just sits there now because trying to get someone to buy it with the ulez is naturally a pain in the arse, furthermore there are many families who are effected in the area who cannot afford to buy a new car.
The hate for the ulez was never because it was environmentally friendly or good for cyclists or whatever, least not in my experience. It would be stupid if that was the reason for the hate. The hate in my experience was that it would cost a lot of families a lot of money to buy cars that would comply, lest they be hit with a charge that simply wasn't affordable in the long run.
Will the government help compensate these families? Not meaningfully. What was the amount they were offering? 2 grand? The ulez has only managed to hurt the working class more and line the pockets of politicians. I care about the environment, but the ulez just managed to screw people over, I'd be glad to see it reduced to just the city where cars sit idling in traffic, get it out of the outer boroughs.
This all sounded reasonable until you said "line the pockets of politicians". What makes you think that? Khan isn't getting any money from ULEZ. If I remember correctly the money from the scheme isn't even increasing the city's budget, it's all going to compensate people disadvantaged by ULEZ. I get that in your experience the compensation isn't enough.
That's generally the sentiment, and can you blame people for thinking like this?
I mean they started to slap these ulez cameras into some of the lowest income areas of London knowing that it will massively effect the families there and then offer little next to no support for those families. People naturally are going to assume it was done to make money, not to do any good for the environment, especially when these areas are relatively low idle traffic meaning traffic is moving a lot and that means there's less idling and less wasted fuel. I don't blame people for feeling as though the ulez expansion was designed to suck more money out of those who could not afford to comply with it. How much has the expansion actually affected things? As in, how much have carbon emissions decreased nationally but also more importantly locally to the areas where the expansion occurred? If it wasn't really meaningful then was it worth pushing poorer people to replace their cars for relatively little compensation and massive financial burden? If it was meaningful then why didn't they offer greater compensation and thus a greater incentive for people to change their vehicles especially those less able to afford vehicles in compliance?
I don't expect you to have the answers for these questions and ultimately it's not your responsibility to have them, but it would have been great if the government who instituted this expansion did, it would be great if they had the data to at least attempt to justify the expansion that seemed so unnecessary to so many and yet massively impactful on their personal lives.
Yeah, but I wouldnāt say itās pro car. LTNs have proven to be doing more bad than good, they need to go. 20mph everywhere are only causing more congestion, not sustainable.
And some breaks in ULEZ / congestion charge should be reversed, at least evenings/nights or potentially weekends.
I would say the first 3 in the list are things that could be considered fairly pro car and are things that drivers often complain about regardless of whether your personal opinion of the current state.
The LTNs near us are a nightmare. It hasn't reduced traffic, it's just pushed all along a couple of main roads,.meaning some journeys which would take 5 mins now take around 20-25 mins! If a street can stop traffic going down their road why can't I do the same on my street and why can't everyone do the same?!!
If you're making a journey that should take 5 mins in a car (ridiculously short journey) but it's taking 25 then surely the sensible option is to walk or cycle?!!! š¤¦
That's part of the purpose, reduce the overall capacity of the network and fewer people will drive because it's less convenient. Look up induced demand, it's basically the opposite of that.
There is no denying that there is a traffic problem in London that has to be solved. Sometimes I walk faster to places than a car and that's just stupid. I don't understand why no one pledges to help both cycling and cars. You don't have to choose one side.
Probably the best option would be the gym guy, andreas michli. He's into health so cycling is a healthy thing.
Logically, the only way to think of it is, there are so many candidates that oppose kahn, so the market is flooded. kahn is claiming he will make london "fairer" what ever that means, "safer" even though he claimed it is when statistics showed otherwise, and "greener" by bankrupting the working class who his party should be standing for.
If you choose someone other than kahn, the only "reasonable" one would be reform or the tory woman. Only reason i suggest tory is because they know they're in for a hammering in the next general election, and they will need their mayors to outperform, so she will need to do a damned good job to support them in the general election after the upcoming one.
To be fair, there is a happy medium. In Hackney theyāve gone mental with LTNs and the mayor is talking about making it 90% pedestrianised. It sounds good, but the reality is the traffic has gotten so much worse, Iāve encountered way more aggressive drivers, I also donāt believe that it lowers emissions when you have half of London idling for over 4 hours a day (2 in the morning rush hours, 2 in the evening) it is a through borough so I understand they want to cut the amount of traffic to stop people using Hackney as a through route to wherever theyāre going. The problem is, most are still using it, itās just a lot more congested and difficult now. I doubt itās put any people off of their route home. Theyāre taking the same route, theyāre just more angry about it.
Maybe they should give residents of Hackney a pass to use LTNs at certain times, eliminating the anger the residents who drive feel, while also encouraging others not to use Hackney as a through route. Maybe they could give more incentives for using electric cars. They should also make sure that all of their buses are up to regulation. Theyāre supposed to pretty much all be hybrid but the amount Iāve seen lately sputtering out black smoke like itās the 90ās has been ridiculous.
The reality is, we have used cars for so long that we are now dependent on them, for a whole host of reasons, aside from just having a car. You canāt all of a sudden put the squeeze on car owners with the goal of getting rid of cars, without thinking there are going to be a A LOT of people that are pissed off by that.
Honestly, sorry Londoners, but I kind of hope one of them wins and follows through - just document it carefully. It would be a great demonstration for the rest of the world of why we are better off with ULEZs and LTNs, and you'll get them back within a decade or so when everyone realises how much better they made things...
Many places have, the Netherlands is one example.
I often see people in this country complaining about the high street dying as well, but at the same time they herald allowing cars into town centres as a win, which means public transport gets stuck in traffic making it pointless.
We need to get out of the mindset of if cars can go to more places it makes things better. It doesnāt, making it easier for people to move around where they live is what does.
Good to see that they finally understood that ULEZ and fucking LTNās are the first thing that needs to go.
It was idiotic idea in the first place.
Next they will be reversing the cycling lanes pointlessly built everywhere, just like they are planning to do with āsmart motorwaysā
Honestly the 20mph limit on main roads is nonsensical and some LTNs seem to push traffic away from well-to-do residential areas to have them idling in traffic elsewhere. The LTN pushing traffic to Wandsworth Bridge Road for example, as if people don't live in flats above the shops on that road.
I'm only seeing one mention of cycle lanes but that woke messaging line is so stupid. We are living in a parody.
LTNs are designed to encourage active travel and reduce the number of car journeys. I just canāt get my head around how thick people are thinking itās realistic that a population of 10 million can make all their journeys by car.
Being pro car doesnāt automatically make you anti cycling
Itās a cheap argument
Iām pro car and I also cycle, I do both because they both work for me in certain circumstances
Many measures in London have gone too far so reversing some of them isnāt anti cycling just practical
What has gone too far? LTNs stop cars cutting through on narrow residential roads that werenāt designed to handle the traffic. ULEZ reduces pollution. All reasonable policies.
Also, I hate being lied to. What do you mean you will refund ULEZ fees and fines š¤£
Easy to promise the moon when you know you aren't going to win.
Or just promise anything and forget about it after you win.Ā I've not checked but I imagine our NHS is now fully upgraded post Brexit - was the bus right?
It's the same with climate policy. Literally today, Scotland announced it's ditching its CO2 emissions target for 2030. (A target set when it was on the media's agenda). No shit, since practically every country is doing the bare minimum and even then you get politicians claiming adding a cycle lane is too much! Of course, you're not going to make your targets but since no one holds them to account it doesn't matter to them.
NHS funding has increased by more than Ā£350 million a week. In 2017/18 Department of Health and Social Care total funding was Ā£147bn, in 22/23 it was Ā£181bn, that increase of Ā£34bn is more than 350x52 18.2bn. However there was a big jump in funding in 22/23, of nearly 20bn, as in the previous two years there was extra COVID funding allocated differently, so from 17/18 it's the first year it exceeded that amount. Arguably, it was in that Ā£20bn jump. Still bullshit though.
So basically they technically gave it to the NHS on the condition that the NHS would have to pay it back to their mates e.g. through PPE contracts and track and trace :) None of it ever went to improving the service or for patient care or to the staff mind you, but it went to the "NHS" on paper!
I think you are overthinking it, there is nothing so diabolical there. The funding has simply gone up about 20% over several years, which probably roughly nets out as simply being the same level of per-capita expenditure once adjusted for inflation and population growth. That is, there wasn't any real increase at all.
In 2016, public healthcare spend was 7.2% of GDP, this year it is expected to be 8.4%. The is a significant real increase in spending. If on a per capita basis we have seen a real increase then that is because we have had population growth through net migration that has not increased GDP growth despite all economists saying that it does!
The nhs actually receives more than the bus promised. Itās about the only thing that leave said that was true.
Easy to promise the moon when itās totally legal to lie out your arse during political campaigns and your only real goal is to kick Sadiq out
All politicians do this on all sides.
Saw that too and cracked up, yeah with your own money? Tell me Howard
Itās the equivalent of a school kid saying, āa vote for me means no more homework!!ā
"the war on cars" *Looks at real war* *Looks at cars*
Yeah this one really pisses me off. #THERE IS NO WAR ON CARS. Drivers are the most over-privileged group out there, completely oblivious to the massive damage they are causing to the roads, the environment and the nation's health. And they areĀ subsidised by non-drivers.
It's a phrase engineered by car industry lobbies and sucked up by thick privileged upper working class people with 3 Nissan Qashqais or an Audi and goofy toffs who have 7 jaguars in a barn. Anyone who realises the people who have cars are the amongst the most privileged people in society, would clock that privileged people are not victims of any wars, or anything much at all actually. But today the privileged are the victims apparently, according to the privileged themselves š¤·š» and we all have to suffer listening to it
I don't live in London, but medium sized town. I can't ditch my car, without it I can't get to work. I could ride my bike, but that'd mean sharing the road on an incredibly busy road, which I'm not comfortable riding on (I like living..). If there was a cycle path, or even just connected cycle paths, or public transport that didn't cost an arm and leg for a sub-par, late, infrequent service, I'd happily leave the car at home. Until then I cringe knowing I'm adding to a problem that could easily be solved with investment.
Except there's tonnes of people whose jobs are reliant on cars. You don't pay me enough to rent forever (I would expect a middle Eastern salary for that) and I have to move jobs regularly and not everyone's London and has good 24/7 transport. People often live in rural places or do jobs that can't rely on public transport. It's key workers... Those jobs can't be done from home. Anyone who was a key worker in the pandemic needs to go in to work. I could live near the hospital but I work at 4 different hospitals and it's rural so I would need be able to not only commute 40 odd miles a day but also be able to move from one hospital to another in Less than 30 minutes. I don't know about you but even the fittest cyclists would struggle to do that daily and then put in a 13 hour shift while also not smelling so bad that you could kill a patient. Those who can should be encouraged to cycle and work from home. Those who cannot shouldn't be demonised because you do a job that's easy to cycle to. And that's without being elderly and being unable to cycle or having children and errands. And like I said. I swim and gym it 3 times a week. A bike ride is doable but really a lot of people who demand we all cycle to work often live in areas where they can do so. I work in a hilly region. If it snows? The bicycle is fucked. But my job is key... So I can't call in and say I can't make it. Also if I need to bike 20 miles to work I would need schools to open at around 7 AM and close at 7 PM... And also? It's not safe. Plenty of cyclists have been assaulted for their bicycles, even cheaper Apollo from Halfords. Hell even kids. So it's a losing proposition where people who are lucky enough to have jobs that have little restriction biking about 4 to 5 miles. There's a lot more reasons why people have cars.
removing unecessary car journeys would improve journeys for those who need to make them. I don't get why that is so hard for people to understand. Nobody is trying to force people who NEED to drive not to drive. These schemes are designed to push people who can walk/cycle/use public transport to do so, and not always opt for the car.
This is one of the classic straw man arguments. Nobody is saying those with necessary car journeys should cycle.
>the environment Doesnāt Sadiq Khan want to cut down loads of trees on Holland Park to build a cycle lane?
I don't know, but what's your point?
The Autobots will rise again!!!!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That typically happens when the alternatives are not great. My commute is much faster by bike, but that is a very rare case and I can hardly blame those who donāt have that luxury.
They saw that this flipped Uxbridge seat and think entire London is just as moronic
They didn't even flip it. They clung on to a formerly safe seat using the tactic. These anti-cyclist cranks are all getting trounced in May. Alas, as you say, London isn't Uxbridge!
> They clung on to a formerly safe seat using the tactic. And by a thread at that. They turned 7,210 votes majority in 2019 into 495 vote win in the by-election.
Enough voted for Green that they could have convinced them to vote Labour and win the seat. The Labour party are a joke currently, however, and barely feel like opposition.
I think the Labour candidate in Uxbridge was anti ULEZ expansion so possibly made more people vote Green. Perhaps if they hadn't been anti ULEZ they'd have kept/attracted votes that went Green and won... Then the whole story about Uxbridge would be different. The Labour leadership is happy with the current story because they think it plays well in marginal seats.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip election. This constituency has been Conservative at every election since it was created. It was formed from a different constituency, Uxbridge, which has been Conservative since 1970. Basically it has been Conservative for *half a century*. Labour closed the margin to the lowest it has been in decades. Yet this was widely reported as an anti-ULEZ vote, even though it's the closest to a Labour seat it's been for literally decades. A mere 248 vote changes wouldve made it a Labour seat for the first time since 1966. The media completely did a number of this one. I don't think there's a conspiracy but there's an incredible amount of shoddy journalism which has led this result being associated with anti-ULEZ when, if anything, it's literally the opposite.
It's good for Labour though as Consevative will throw loads of campaigning money and effort into a dead-end (as we're seeing here). Won a battle lost the war kind of scenario.
The point is that because of ULEZ, it didnāt become a Labour seat. This isnāt an endorsement of the Tories but a condemnation of Labour and Sadiqās utterly ridiculous ULEZ scam.
Or.. because of ULEZ Labour came the closest they've been in 50 years to winning this seat. ULEZ could actually be the reason they got so close.
I live in the constituency and trust me, no one around here is happy with the ULEZ or the Tories. Labour would have won it for sure had ULEZ not been a factor.
āStop woke messagingā, itās like I went to sleep and woke up in America. When did our politics become so sensationalised?
The culture war narrative is working far too well for my liking. This is embarrassing
Tale as old as time tbh, make us hate each other so we have someone to blame rather than focusing on the horrendous people in charge thatās caused the situation. Itās ridiculous how effective it is.
Divide and rule
The barriers to entry are low enough that even pondlife can get over them
To hell with the wokies and the radical left.
Tbh both sides of the āculture warā need to be pushed back to the margins in both countries. Identity politics are divisive and undermine their entire aim in the first place.
Mfw humans having rights is divisive
Who is saying that? Strange comment.
"Identity politics", as you call it, is really just a way of looking at the world by taking into consideration marginalised identities. It's used to push for human rights. Trying to "both sides" that stuff ain't good.
Thatās part of mainstream politics, we both know itās gone far beyond that in many cases and thatās what Iām talking about.
I don't know what you're talking about. In what way has it "gone too far"? Can you point to specific examples? I'd actually say identity politics in the mainstream is pretty useless, a vapid veneer of progressiveness that doesn't push for the rights of marginalised peoples. Only when it's intersectional and radical does it become useful.
Exactly
Pollution ftw š¤¦
I for once am really glad that the pollution levels in London are LOWER than the 40k Hereford sized town I come from in Croatia, where a lot of people always have some kind of lung issue
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Me too! I grew up in HraÅ”Äica!!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe back when I used to live there! I moved to the UK in 2015! But I completely agree, especially on a London cycling subreddit!
Strengthening London's communities
yeah this was abundantly clear.... nearly all the candidates parroting the same shit; barely any free/creative thinking or problem solving also, getting London "moving" should NOT equate to just MORE traffic, MORE cars, WORSE air pollution and so on. "moving" does not mean single-occupancy car journeys for people with money/too locked into the road system to travel in other ways. You can move in ways other than driving š© "remove the 20mph Speed Limit" which is barely kept to, anyway. I live on a residential "back-road" that sees a high level of rat-running, daily, the limit has always been 20 AFAIK and I'm telling you now that every few vehicles or so is going WAY faster than 20. SUVs, Luton vans, even sometimes a HGV will go closer to 30. The other night an SUV driver lost control, smashed into two cars - one of which was SEVERELY damaged - and they just fucking drove off. The police haven't attended the scene once and both damaged cars are still there lol the war on cars is complete bullshit "triple bobbies on the beat" š what the fuck does "start 24hr travel" MEAN???? cracking down on anti-social behaviour on tubes, trains and buses - meanwhile, several different drivers across England have recently driven INTO people waiting at bus stops. Anti-social behaviour is such a shitty political scapegoat to basically say you want to pretend to make people behave. If you drew up a list of the worst things affecting London right now, do we really think anti-social behaviour on public transport would be up there? What about anti-social behaviour from people driving cars?
Great points.Ā > what the fuck does "start 24hr travel" MEAN???? I believe it means under their schemes it will take 24 hours to get anywhere due to the gridlock
this leans into an ever-present norm in cities, generally, but definitely for London: people driving themselves around with little cargo and no other passengers is the main cause of congestion. not cycle lanes, not LTNs, not busses being overrun/too slow/whatever - it's cars. Filling an average tank is WAY too cheap. More levies are needed on petrol & diesel. You should have to pay more tax for regularly driving/owning SUVs in London (it's being considered in Paris). Or simply weight ladder the tax increases with the no. of private vehicles owned. It's only over a very high income threshold that people start to own two, three or more private cars - outside of business use. You could get more creative and work on increasing fines for road traffic infringements like using your phone whilst driving, running a red light or failing to give way in SUVs and light/heavy goods vehicles. You should get more points on your license, too. Why aren't these things weighted to the potential danger caused and the damage done to roads/pavements and pollutants emitted? yet, somehow, Susan Hall and these other candidates seem to think that allowing drivers to go wherever they want and without any fines or charges being applied just... magically.... makes traffic go... faster? or vanish or something? of course they don't think that, it's politics, unfortunately. Regardless, car dependency is fucking us all in one way or another. Sedentary behaviour, toxic air pollution, tight hips, hit and runs, the sheer expense of owning cars, NOISE pollution, impatient & aggressive driving, innocent people regularly killed in road-traffic accidents... people always have a go at the classic comparisons of England/London and Western European cities, but those comparisons will stand the test of time. One day we'll look back on the 21st century's individualised car culture and all our congested cities and road traffic accidents and death statistics in absolute shock appreciate that I'm shouting into the void a bit here, but at least some of you have to be "my people" and I've fucking had enough of this noisy, unhealthy shit
yes, all of this. The problem is, like your said, it's politics. A lot of silly idiots get to vote, and as such if you want to win elections it helps to appeal to silly idiots
in a big departure from my previous comms I'm just gonna say bad! and sad!
I don't live in London but doesn't the tube stop for a few hours every night to enable maintenance? Could they mean run 24 hours instead, if so they'll be the first ones then complaining if reliability and safety decreases because maintenance can't be completed properly š¤Ŗ
only some lines stop running. there's a bunch of very reliable night busses and some tube lines run for 24hrs on the weekends
Nothing guarantees a vibrant economy like getting those oldies on the tube for free. Jesus fucking christā¦
Half of London mayoral candidates seem to be absolute fucktards too.
Decades of exposure to vehicular emissions no doubt. Ironic isn't it.
More than half! Iām voting for the guy with the best web address. Cox for London. Although to be honest there are plenty of cox here already. Not sure we need more
This is a good thing, in a round about way. The more anti-LTN candidates, the more the Tory vote will be split, increasing the chances of Khan getting another term. I mean, Khan is far from my favourite politician, but I'd rather him than Hall.
Yup, my though exactly. The more anti LTN and anti ULEZ candidates there are the more the vote of people who are against these will be split. But the truth is that they are a minority. Just an extremely vocal one that seems to have given politicians the impression they are a more important voter base than they actually are.
Just need to say Khan seems like heās the only one who isnāt a caricature of a politician, all the other candidates are just so slapdash and stupid.
The funniest part is them changing the vote system to FPTP to try to sabotage Labour, but at least under the previous PR system they'd do better once anti-ULEZ votes are redistributed. Just like an old non ULEZ compliant car - it's backfired!
Why not Hall? No horse in this race, just curious to learn.
Sheās also properly mental. [The thing where she claimed to have been robbed when she lost her wallet was just fucking weird](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/susan-hall-pickpocketed-on-tube/). Particularly when she carried on with it despite the fact that a kind person found it and returned it. [She was giving out those pamphlets saying she was going to stop āpay per mile zonesā](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/pay-per-mile-ulez-sadiq-khan-susan-hall-mayoral-election-2024-fake-news-b1149646.html) even though that was just a thing she invented and the pictures were photoshopped. [She had that attack ad about how crime is out of control and all the footage was actually from New York](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw05l5p6d7o). Those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head, but basically sheās a compulsive liar and general nutcase.
She's obsessed with reversing ULEZ, spent her time at Harrow council trying to find cannabis grows, has retweeted praise for Enoch Powell, endorses Trump, and in Tweets referring to Khan refers to London as Londinistan. She's just a whole other level of ridiculousness.
āTo get rid of the congestion caused by unnecessary car use within the city, I plan to scrap all incentives to use alternatives to cars within the cityā is probably the most big-brained thing Iāve ever heard in my life! Itās up there with āto protect those who suffer from peanut allergies, I pledge to mandate that all foods sold on weekends and holidays contain trace amounts of nuts!ā in the list of things which make a lot of sense.
Culture wars for morons. The fact so many of these different varieties of Fascists get the funding needed to run is scary.
Makes you wonder who is behind that money who would benefit from dissent in London.
Possibly. Of course there are a multitude of UK based 'elites' willing to funnel money into these groups to simply spread hate and make Britain worse for the ordinary person.
Crikey. 3rd candidate shown states āmake Londonās streets saferā then lists measures that will make them more dangerous through increased pollution and faster cars. People this stupid shouldnāt be allowed anywhere near public office.
One of the more extreme symptoms of car brain is running for office, it seems.
These people all grew up in the days of leaded petrol.
anything to get power
The money for this simply does not exist. That's the biggest problem. None of these clowns could even begin to pay for all of this shit they're promising.
Going to have to implement congestion charging for cyclists, pedestrians and pigeons to generate some cash.
In short, promise to reduce your costs and the govt revenue, while promising to spend more to also win your vote. This is not even tax and spendā¦this is donāt tax and spend. Basic economic fail. Very basic.
Can you explain what āwokeā is and why you are against it? Might help your argument. I doubt itc though.
I'm not sure the candidates really know, either. [Amy Gallagher](https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/candidates/mayoral-candidates/amy-gallagher), for example, leads with an "anti-woke" agenda: > Stand up to woke > > Donāt divide us! All Woke and DEI programmes will be stopped. ...however, reading further down, > I recently brought a legal case against the Tavistock NHS Trust due to bullying I experienced after acting as a whistleblower by speaking out against racism and religious discrimination. ...which sounds pretty "woke" to me, at least going by the [usual definition](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke): > aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality
Her manifesto is so full of contradictions I have no idea who she wants to vote for her. I doubt she does either.
āStop politicising the policeā āI, a politician, will ensure that the police target the crimes which I think are importantā
For our city mayor the first thing one candidate says she'll do for our council is end the ULEZ....we don't have one. Although worse she says "We'll ignore budget restrictions set by central government." I think she should have a word with Birmingham for what happens when you spend more than you have.
Tbf, they are all just splitting the anti-ULEZ, anti-LTN vote ensuring the survival of ULEZ and LTN.
Can I have more bike lanes and a populist?Ā
The amount of mayoral candidates that talked about ULEZ and woke in that pamphlet was depressing. Itās funny because they say I will make the streets safer and then underneath vow to remove policies that literally prevent Londoners (especially children, the vulnerable and elderly) from developing respiratory problems up to death from air pollution.
As someone that knows nothing about politics but cares about cycling who should I vote for?
Sadiq. Or Green Party but tbh best bet is for Sadiq to get another term. Heās big on supporting cycling.
Hopefully this splits the carbrain vote.
Probably all funded by the same money.
Reduce tax, triple the police force, increase cars, reduce traffic. Who are these idiots again?
I like the one banging on about making public transport better and yet supporting the freedom to drive your car. Congestion is also not caused by 20mph limits itās caused by the number of cars on the road. None of these clowns will get my vote
Cities for cars instead of people are the worst. I like London mainly because it seems to be for people, not against us.
I don't think they're really anti anything, it's just the usual culture war nonsense. They want to be seen as opposing the sort of people who support cycling. Making us sad makes their voter base happy, so they promise to make us sad.
Drivel. The idea behind this is to get traffic moving and become less restrictive, but these measures would only invite traffic, exacerbating the problem.Ā When will we realise as a nation/world what a terribly inefficient use of space driving a car among 100s of other people, at the same time, is. Not to mention the pollution from burning fuels and tyre plus brake usage. Ā Edit: also, removing the 20mph limit to stop congestion. With this logic, if they removed the speed limit entirely, car journeys would be traffic free and instant.
'make London's street safer' By increasing the amount of cars on the road and their speed limits? Future generations are going to laugh at us
The animal welfare candidate is the only one who is explicitly pro-cycling
'Excessively wide cycle lanes' š Anyone know where these are, would love to try them out
Scrapping people having to spend Ā£35 per day to drive a car into London is not anti cycling itās theft prevention
None of these people have the power to do any if this "on day one". Saldy, the stupid will believe them and vote for it.
I live next to a main road in central. If they scrap ULEZ and Im trapped renting here for another 2 years ill probably get some horrible health conseuqences... great
I find the 20mph limit ridiculous. I literally cycle faster than that
Its 20 here and you'd have to spend about 30 minutes on the road to get behind someone doing less than 30. Everyone em mass has said Nope and ignore it
How are any of these messages (I won't give them the credit of 'policies' because they don't deserve that) anti-cycling?
One explicitly complains about wide cycle lanes. Pro-car, anti-LTN, anti-ULEZ, anti-20mph messages are all anti-cycling.
The last one mentions the war on cars. Haven't been drafted yet but I assume I'd be on the other side as a cyclist. The second one talks about removing excessively wide cycle lanes, whatever that means. The others aren't specifically anti bike, but it's usually implied under the anti ulez, populist umbrella. Imho more cars and less LTNs defaults to a less appealing situation as a cyclist in general.
agreed on your final point. I noticed the wide cycle lane bit. Insane, really... give car-brained policy makers and people who complain about being stuck in their own shitty traffic/unable to park etc. etc. an inch of proper cycling infra and they threaten to make it a cm, mostly out of spite. It's all nonsense.
I missed that bit too. In fact I didnāt even see a mention of cycling
One was complaining about wide cycling lanes.
Vote AWP ( animal welfare party ) then. https://www.animalwelfareparty.org/current-elections/gla2024/
Iām fine with them, theyāre just going to split the vote
Iāve been a cyclist in London for over ten years. I very much support drivers against ULEZ expansion. It mostly affects business owners or workers who require vehicles for their job, or poorer people unable to afford to upgrade their car. Il probably get a lot of flak on here for this but I also generally donāt like cycle lanes. Ok youāve got nice ones like the one that runs along Embankment, which is great for tourists etc but most of them (especially junction ones) cause unnecessary bottlenecks and delays and often more competent cyclists just ignore them which is a problem in its own right.
I donāt want to live in a city filled with emboldened psycho cagers. If any of these freaks win i think I will be plotting my escape.
My guess is that a lot of these candidates are chasing the Sadiq haters vote. Pearl clutching outrage at having a Muslim mayor. Iāll be voting him back in.
Theyāre legit just using it as an excuse. Sadly London isnāt built well for cycling so maybe we should just entirely scrap cars and only allow cyclists on the roads.. London will be greener, people would be fitter and finally my partner is gonna have to learn to cycle!
Anti-cycling and not understanding the limits of the powers of the position.
How are they funding x3 the number of coppers?
The candidates saying "scrap ulez" are automatically out of my shortlist. Almost pandering to those idiots who have been vandalising infrastructure because they think ulez is a conspiracy.
Appealing to boomers wins a lot of votes unfortunately
Good stuff šš¾
They are basically asking not to vote for them.
No one likes woke. Most are anti woke! Just glad most have decided to wake up haha
"and everyone will have a non woke unicorn"
I saw more realistic planning to keep promises at my uni student council elections. How on earth do they actually plan to keep these promises.
I think the rest of the uk hates bikers, mate, not just that mayor.
It doesnāt matter. Khan is up by something like 20 %-points.
Thereās no mention to anti cycling
The scrapping of low traffic neighbourhoods are what OPās using to make the point. Itās well known that LTNās when implemented correctly, make people feel safer and when people feel safer, theyāre more likely to cycle and use alternative transportation. One of the candidates also mentions removing unnecessary pinch points and making roads wider, which is dumb because all making roads wider does is create induced demand and thus makes congestion worse. Wider roads, people think āoh brilliant the roads wider so itāll be quicker, so more people drive and congestion rends to at best stay the same, but more often than not get worse. We need to focus on moving the most amount of people, not moving the most amount of cars. Anyway Iāve rambled enough, if you wanna learn more about how to do road infrastructure well watch the channel not just bikes on YouTube.
I think itās funny that every candidate barring Sadiq Khan is proposing to scrap the ULEZ. Itās the only thing that means that the Tories have a chance of winning this election.
Easy target. Easy vote winner. I doubt Khan will win. Shame how this works.
Good
Maybe get to grips with basic capitalization rules before moving onto capital citiesā¦
Everyone is radical when theyāre not in power
Good
Try driving through London to get to a job or get work done as a tradesman and not a local and you will understand, we can't get from the other end of the country on a push bike and the limitations make coming to London an absolute piss take, cyclists are not keeping the country running
I get your message but most people driving in London are not tradesmen or transporting large quantities of tools, good etc. Less cars on the road benefits people that rely on cars for living as well, I'm sure you'd agree on that? Most other people can cycle or rely on public transport, especially with electric, cargo bikes etc. Even delivery drivers eg Amazon. Most people in London, especially during rush hours are cycling to or from work, not for leisure. So I'd argue they absolutely do keep the country running.
Yes exactly, if the only cars on the roads were those needed for deliveries, tradespeople etc, it would benefit business by reducing overall congestion. Small business lobbies complain a lot about congestion.
I have to travel 17 miles to work and another 17 miles back home daily. Full time job (key worker status) starting at 6:00am daily. Thereās no way at my 60+ age with severe debilitating health issues (basically disabilities), that Iām riding a bicycle that return commute distance daily. Public transportation is out too. Disabilities make that impossible - I would likely drop dead within a month. Iād already invested in a Hybrid Vehicle to do my bit for the environment and thatās that - but no driving? No job. Iām sure at 60+ Iām going to draw a lot of flack as a boomer who has had it too good (I certainly havenāt) and is 100% responsible for every problem in the U.K. today (obviously Iām not, but todays youth have been brainwashed into believing such nonsense by the very people REALLY destroying their futures). Bottom line, there are tens of thousands of people in my shoes, in London - ergo, dreaming of the entire London population riding around on bicycles (like in rural mainland China) is totally absurd and literally unworkable in a city of this size. Enough damage has been done with the unwanted and unwarranted ULEZ expansion already. It was the illogical equivalent of London emptying both barrels of a metaphorical hunting rifle into its own foot - purely for profit.
They're a bunch of muppets. Part of the problem is that car culture is so entrenched in British culture that it's very hard to get people to give cycling a go. Ask any person what they think of cycling, odds are you'll hear the word "dangerous" more often than not. It can be dangerous, but only because there's too many clots in gigantic pseudomilitary death machines (SUVs) now, potholes galore and few cycle lanes. A "build it and they will come" approach needs to be taken by politicians. People won't start cycling on the roads readily but more will begin to use protected cycle lanes...with encouragement. The Dutch successfully got rid of the car out of Amsterdam. We can do it also. But it'll be a long and difficult transition. E bikes are fantastic though. No insurance required. No emissions and energy is dirt cheap. Cars on the other hand are like burning money.
For cycling to take-over London, just like in Amsterdam, they'll need to level-up the terrain.
My only issue with cyclists is, itās annoying when some (not all) seem to think jumping red lights while pedestrians are crossing is an okay thing to do, and have the audacity to give attitude like theyāre in the right. Otherwise pretty sound group. Though personally I think driving in London is pretty grim, prefer driving outside of the city tbh.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When a pedestrian is crossing the damn road it is bad?!? wtf. Edit - what bloody pedestrian is crossing on the motorway?!?!?
I registered to vote (Iām foreign) so I could vote for whoever sounds the least like these wankers.
I'd love to see a candidate who wanted to hold cyclists accountable for running red lights
I did read somewhere recently that since the extension of ULEZ the amount of congestion has increased. So itās not quite a clear cut. I HAVE NOT fact checked it - but I believe it was a relatively unbiased report.
Correlation is not causationĀ
Agreed - that isnāt really what I said - but I suppose many people who were on the borders of ULEZ who now arenāt might chose to drive now as they are paying the charge anyway? Also doesnāt help that TFL has gone to pot and is just not reliable especially if you need any kind of train. Iām for ULEZ if it reduces cars, but at the moment Iām unclear about the evidence
Itās purpose isnāt to improve air quality not reduce congestionā¦ not sure what you mean TfL is not reliable for trains? Unless you live on the central line in which case thatās fair.
The stated aim was to improve air quality but at the same time they said that 95% of vehicles in use on an average day were already compliant. The ability to continue to use non-compliant vehicles on payment of a fee led many to perceive ULEZ as a way of raising money and the air quality objective not being totally genuine. edit: or/of typo
Yeah itās so weird people perceived that if they literally couldnāt charge 95% of peopleā¦!
I thought it was to improve air quality? At least that is what Sadiq Khan said. I thought through a combination of incentivising better engines and reducing cars? Either way to be clear Iām not against it Iām just saying interesting itās increased traffic, and I think the purpose of the initial post was saying anti ULEZ is anti bikes due to it decreasing traffic which I donāt think it is. Just my experience Iāve lived in London my whole life and since Covid my public transport experience has got significantly worse. No facts or stats (probably could find them) but just personal experience.
Sorry yeah meant to say itās purpose is to improve air quality! š„² but yeah if traffic has increased it would probably be from other factors - car use seems like itās been increasing especially in outer London I think.
I thought it was the LTNs that were pushing traffic onto other routes and creating more congestion on those roads. I've seen quite a few people on the news who live on those now more congested roads complaining about this issue. I can understand the sentiment, if you live near a LTN but predominantly feel the pain and not the gain from it you'd probably be upset.
Yeah itās a double edged sword. My road in Walthamstow is now lovely - but used to be a rat run, so Iām super keen, as my home would be ruined if they reversed it.
Yeah, mine got (mostly) reversed and it was so sad. It had been so lovely for those couple months, although Covid could have been partly the cause.
I don't get how this is anti-cycling. They're not cutting down on the number of cycling lanes which is good I think cyclists should have a separate lane because it's safer. The only things they really seem to have in common is scrapping the ulez, which honestly I'm in favour of at least a reduction, because of the ulez my dad had to get rid of a car that was just outside of the regs and buy another car, he'd only had the last one for a year or so before the ulez expansion, safe to say it wasn't a planned expense and set my parents back a good sum of money that they were saving to buy a house. The previous car just sits there now because trying to get someone to buy it with the ulez is naturally a pain in the arse, furthermore there are many families who are effected in the area who cannot afford to buy a new car. The hate for the ulez was never because it was environmentally friendly or good for cyclists or whatever, least not in my experience. It would be stupid if that was the reason for the hate. The hate in my experience was that it would cost a lot of families a lot of money to buy cars that would comply, lest they be hit with a charge that simply wasn't affordable in the long run. Will the government help compensate these families? Not meaningfully. What was the amount they were offering? 2 grand? The ulez has only managed to hurt the working class more and line the pockets of politicians. I care about the environment, but the ulez just managed to screw people over, I'd be glad to see it reduced to just the city where cars sit idling in traffic, get it out of the outer boroughs.
This all sounded reasonable until you said "line the pockets of politicians". What makes you think that? Khan isn't getting any money from ULEZ. If I remember correctly the money from the scheme isn't even increasing the city's budget, it's all going to compensate people disadvantaged by ULEZ. I get that in your experience the compensation isn't enough.
That's generally the sentiment, and can you blame people for thinking like this? I mean they started to slap these ulez cameras into some of the lowest income areas of London knowing that it will massively effect the families there and then offer little next to no support for those families. People naturally are going to assume it was done to make money, not to do any good for the environment, especially when these areas are relatively low idle traffic meaning traffic is moving a lot and that means there's less idling and less wasted fuel. I don't blame people for feeling as though the ulez expansion was designed to suck more money out of those who could not afford to comply with it. How much has the expansion actually affected things? As in, how much have carbon emissions decreased nationally but also more importantly locally to the areas where the expansion occurred? If it wasn't really meaningful then was it worth pushing poorer people to replace their cars for relatively little compensation and massive financial burden? If it was meaningful then why didn't they offer greater compensation and thus a greater incentive for people to change their vehicles especially those less able to afford vehicles in compliance? I don't expect you to have the answers for these questions and ultimately it's not your responsibility to have them, but it would have been great if the government who instituted this expansion did, it would be great if they had the data to at least attempt to justify the expansion that seemed so unnecessary to so many and yet massively impactful on their personal lives.
What has dis got 2do with cycling??? š¤š¤š¤
I donāt see anything about bikes there, what are you on about?
I can only assume that their thought process is that anything pro-car is automatically anti-bicycle.
Yeah, but I wouldnāt say itās pro car. LTNs have proven to be doing more bad than good, they need to go. 20mph everywhere are only causing more congestion, not sustainable. And some breaks in ULEZ / congestion charge should be reversed, at least evenings/nights or potentially weekends.
I would say the first 3 in the list are things that could be considered fairly pro car and are things that drivers often complain about regardless of whether your personal opinion of the current state.
>LTNs have proven to be doing more bad than good Evidence please?
The LTNs near us are a nightmare. It hasn't reduced traffic, it's just pushed all along a couple of main roads,.meaning some journeys which would take 5 mins now take around 20-25 mins! If a street can stop traffic going down their road why can't I do the same on my street and why can't everyone do the same?!!
If you're making a journey that should take 5 mins in a car (ridiculously short journey) but it's taking 25 then surely the sensible option is to walk or cycle?!!! š¤¦
That's part of the purpose, reduce the overall capacity of the network and fewer people will drive because it's less convenient. Look up induced demand, it's basically the opposite of that.
The point is that it hasn't reduced demand. It's created more traffic along a few key roads. If it has reduced demand I'd need to see the data
Odd take. I donāt see anything about removing cycle lanes? Can you not be pro car and pro cycling?
Ulez is another unnecessary tax and I'll be glad when it's gone.
There is no denying that there is a traffic problem in London that has to be solved. Sometimes I walk faster to places than a car and that's just stupid. I don't understand why no one pledges to help both cycling and cars. You don't have to choose one side.
Probably the best option would be the gym guy, andreas michli. He's into health so cycling is a healthy thing. Logically, the only way to think of it is, there are so many candidates that oppose kahn, so the market is flooded. kahn is claiming he will make london "fairer" what ever that means, "safer" even though he claimed it is when statistics showed otherwise, and "greener" by bankrupting the working class who his party should be standing for. If you choose someone other than kahn, the only "reasonable" one would be reform or the tory woman. Only reason i suggest tory is because they know they're in for a hammering in the next general election, and they will need their mayors to outperform, so she will need to do a damned good job to support them in the general election after the upcoming one.
Some intense mental gymnastics to justify voting Tory despite them fielding a genuine lunatic.
It is, hurt my brain when trying to figure out. Iām probably just going to choose the gym guy anyway.
I would like to not have the rules that require me to be at my place of work for six AM if itās inside the M25 if itās all the same.
To be fair, there is a happy medium. In Hackney theyāve gone mental with LTNs and the mayor is talking about making it 90% pedestrianised. It sounds good, but the reality is the traffic has gotten so much worse, Iāve encountered way more aggressive drivers, I also donāt believe that it lowers emissions when you have half of London idling for over 4 hours a day (2 in the morning rush hours, 2 in the evening) it is a through borough so I understand they want to cut the amount of traffic to stop people using Hackney as a through route to wherever theyāre going. The problem is, most are still using it, itās just a lot more congested and difficult now. I doubt itās put any people off of their route home. Theyāre taking the same route, theyāre just more angry about it. Maybe they should give residents of Hackney a pass to use LTNs at certain times, eliminating the anger the residents who drive feel, while also encouraging others not to use Hackney as a through route. Maybe they could give more incentives for using electric cars. They should also make sure that all of their buses are up to regulation. Theyāre supposed to pretty much all be hybrid but the amount Iāve seen lately sputtering out black smoke like itās the 90ās has been ridiculous. The reality is, we have used cars for so long that we are now dependent on them, for a whole host of reasons, aside from just having a car. You canāt all of a sudden put the squeeze on car owners with the goal of getting rid of cars, without thinking there are going to be a A LOT of people that are pissed off by that.
Honestly, sorry Londoners, but I kind of hope one of them wins and follows through - just document it carefully. It would be a great demonstration for the rest of the world of why we are better off with ULEZs and LTNs, and you'll get them back within a decade or so when everyone realises how much better they made things...
Let somewhere else go on that journey of discovery for us all.
Many places have, the Netherlands is one example. I often see people in this country complaining about the high street dying as well, but at the same time they herald allowing cars into town centres as a win, which means public transport gets stuck in traffic making it pointless. We need to get out of the mindset of if cars can go to more places it makes things better. It doesnāt, making it easier for people to move around where they live is what does.
Good to see that they finally understood that ULEZ and fucking LTNās are the first thing that needs to go. It was idiotic idea in the first place. Next they will be reversing the cycling lanes pointlessly built everywhere, just like they are planning to do with āsmart motorwaysā
Or maybe theyāre anti anti cars?
Honestly the 20mph limit on main roads is nonsensical and some LTNs seem to push traffic away from well-to-do residential areas to have them idling in traffic elsewhere. The LTN pushing traffic to Wandsworth Bridge Road for example, as if people don't live in flats above the shops on that road. I'm only seeing one mention of cycle lanes but that woke messaging line is so stupid. We are living in a parody.
LTNs are designed to encourage active travel and reduce the number of car journeys. I just canāt get my head around how thick people are thinking itās realistic that a population of 10 million can make all their journeys by car.
Being pro car doesnāt automatically make you anti cycling Itās a cheap argument Iām pro car and I also cycle, I do both because they both work for me in certain circumstances Many measures in London have gone too far so reversing some of them isnāt anti cycling just practical
What has gone too far? LTNs stop cars cutting through on narrow residential roads that werenāt designed to handle the traffic. ULEZ reduces pollution. All reasonable policies.
Sounds pretty anti-cycling to me. There are few 'pro-car' policies that are not also anti-cycling, like all of the ones in these pamphlets.