| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Tfl proposals for Hogarth Roundabout | |
| Posted by: | Jeremy Parkinson | |
| Date/Time: | 07/08/24 08:27:00 |
| Please stop Mr Brooks. The way you are expressing yourself is shameful and embarrassing. Whatever Michael may have said to you, there is simply no excuse for using racist language of this nature. Your unpleasantness detracts from what is the most interesting aspect of this discussion. If you'd asked me what Michael's attitude to these plans just after they were revealed, I would have assured you that he would have been passionately against them. While I disagree with him on a lot of things, his consistency and inflexibility have to be respected and he often raises important points for consideration. While he may ignore nuance and complexity in many of the issues we face, he has always had a number of rigid principles that he follows without fail. Normally he will engage in civilised discussion until someone makes a point that he can't answer, at which point the anger will boil over and the name-calling begins. The baffling thing about this issue is that he seems to have gone straight to abuse without any preamble. I'm really intrigued why he is so intensely in favour of a road widening project which seems to go against the foundation of everything he has argued for over the years. It offers zero benefit to cyclists apart from ASLs which even he will admit will never be used. He is generally in favour of blocking roads but as the Church Street exit is by definition local access only even by the loosest definition, this can't be described as an LTN. The only explanation I can think of for his passion for this expansion of road space is that he has been told that part of the reason for it being required is pressure on the northbound carriageway of the A316 created by the access restrictions in Grove Park. He may therefore fear these measures would be removed if the extra lane isn't added to the A4. This is pure speculation on my part and the only evidence I have for it is the passion with an unbending anti-car campaigner is defending a measure which is indisputably pro-car. If someone can give a better explanation, I'd be very grateful. |