| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Average bus speeds fall below 9mph | |
| Posted by: | David Lesniak | |
| Date/Time: | 12/01/26 14:03:00 |
| Sorry, Andrew, I haven't shared with you all of my LBHF correspondence. That is where they mention traffic flow. You seem to take umbrage you weren't CCed in. But please, do continue to focus on political rhetoric as opposed to lived experience and reality. Insinuating based on ignorance is never a good look. In my humble opinion. There is a current court case going on with regard to how councils use/abuse the consultation process to implement LTNs in particular. Who among us hasn't responded to a consultation questionnaire wondering why the answer you want to give isn't one of the options forcing you to commit to a response that doesn't fully represent your position? This has happened repeatedly with TfL as well, so color me sceptical when I hear the word "consultation." In fact, recently TfL and Rachel Aldred were called out for their abusing the process as well. Removing the sign wasn't about removing clutter. Sorry, that I simply won't buy. Not in the center and not with regard to how parking is used or not. This is precisely where people from outside the area will come and park as a one-off going to any of the local theatres in the area. With more yet to come at Olympia. Again, simply compare it to the clarity and experience customers have when going to Westfield. You know precisely what you're going to get, each and every time you go. No surprises. No shock. No hidden fees. Again, I'm not sure why one has to explain why a time plate was there. Clearly to inform of the timings. No? It really is rather obvious. Just not to you. Duly noted. I don't think people will cotton on to the extent they would by a simple update of a pre-existing time plate. Of course, that would mean no income. Which I maintain is the point. I've said it once, I'll say it again. Change the CPZ. Fine. But do so in a clear, concise, transparent way obvious to all. Signs make things obvious. Especially those site-specific ones. Like the one that was there for years. I was mentioning this experience to two friends, both British, both Oxford grads. Both said they would have interpreted less signage as being more lenient, not more restrictive. I thought that curious. You may not know this, Andrew, but I'm American here for 20 years now so often I chalk things up to simply not knowing how things get done in this neck of the woods. You all seem to like making things unnecessarily complicated, that I know. A bit like this Exhibit A. To me this discussion is part of the point, Andrew. There shouldn't be a need for people to debate and research and appeal when things are so vague. All of that does a disservice to businesses by penalizing visitors in a needless manner. Not just businesses, but residents and their guests as well. Penalize for the obvious. This isn't that. There was never a warning sign things were changing. Not even a temporary one. Nothing. Nor was there an easily bestowed courtesy/grace period. To me, that has the stench of a money grab. I don't think any reasonable person could see it any other way. Certainly the people I've spoken to who received PCNs agree. FWIW, I'm not one of those "god-given" right drivers. If you recall, I started the topic by saying I adhered to the regulations for years prior to them changing without any notification of any sort in any place at any time. LBHF could have easily simply said, oh yes, sorry about that, on this occasion we will waive it. But they didn't. I had to fight for it. Leaves a bad taste in your mouth especially when you're smack in the middle of the very zone affected. They could have asked if I was consulted instead of them telling me I was (that's called gaslighting, FYI). They could have apologized that we weren't or offered to look into why we weren't. But they said ALL. That's on them. I do agree with you unequivocally, LBHF is a better run borough than LBH. |