Forum Topics

PAVEMENT CYCLING

IT GOES WITHOUT SAYINGPavement cycling is dangerous, anti-social, illegal, and a criminal act!Cycling is a road carriageway activity for a vehicle classed in law as a ‘carriage’ Highways Act 1835 Section 72 – Rule 64 of the Highway CodeThe government is actively promoting cycling as an alternative means of transport to reduce public dependence on private motor cars, improve personal fitness and reduce environmental pollution. The overall object is said to be to increase cycle use in the UK from 2% of journeys in 2011, to 10% of all journeys in 2025, and 25% by 2050In March 2013 London Mayor Boris Johnson published his ‘Vision for Cycling in London’ and appointed journalist Andrew Gilligan as his Cycling Commissioner. In April 2013 the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group published its ‘Get Britain Cycling’ report. Parliament debated the issue for four hours on Monday 2 September 2013. Some £100million is on offer from TfL to enable London Boroughs to improve road safety for cyclists..A national ‘Bikeability’ scheme is sponsored by the Department for Transport to teach safe cycling on the roads, administered through local authorities. Its training programme concentrates on youngsters of school age.Yet the danger to pedestrians of pavement cycling ‘goes without saying’. It is barely acknowledge in the above reports. It was mentioned only once in the Parliamentary debate. The issue is not addressed at all in any of the central or local government cycling publicity.Enforcing the law against pavement cycling is the responsibility of Britain’s police forces under the overall command of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, since road laws are part of the criminal law. Yet it seems police policy to view pavement cycling as a ‘petty crime’, not worth bothering about, and certainly not worth any serious policing effort. As Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee commented in its October 2009 report on ‘Improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists in Great Britain’ “Enforcing cycling offences was typically not high on the agenda of most police forces.”The legal sanctions against the crime of pavement cycling reflect this ‘petty crime’ attitude. Police officers can issue an on-the-spot £30 Penalty Notice to anyone over the age of 16 for cycling ‘irresponsibly’ on the pavement. Children under the age of criminal responsibility (10) cannot be prosecuted. The maximum penalty the courts can impose for causing death by dangerous cycling (on the pavements or on the road) is £2500. Pavement cycling occurs because a) many pavement cyclists believe (or claim) that cycling is a ‘pedestrian’ activity which is allowed on the pavements, b) most cyclists use the pavements because of the perceived danger of cycling on the roads, c) many pedestrians either believe the same thing or are pressured into ‘tolerating’ pavement cycling, d) there are no public notices declaring that pavement cycling is illegal.In 2007 a law was introduced banning smoking in public places. That law is widely respected, and many premises display a simple notice reinforcing the law. A similar simple sign widely displayed on our streets could have a similar effect to eliminate pavement cycling, if only police and local authorities would spend a fraction the money they have available for improving cycling safety on the roads - to keep cycling off the pavements. Transport for London is said to be developing a new ‘Pedestrian Safety Action Plan’ which should address the threat of pavement cycling to pedestrian safety.The message to cyclists must be: ‘’KEEP DEATH OFF THE ROADS – BUT DON’T BRING IT ONTO THE PAVEMENTS!”Tony Purton, Ealing W13

TONY PURTON ● 4723d23 Comments ● 4699d

Good News for Alcoholics and the Oil & Booze Industry

Yesterday the licensing committee for Hanwell granted a licence to the Shell garage in Church Road to sell alcohol. Only from 8am to 11pm though, mind you. There are some limits.This is good news for those characters in the local debating society who congregate on the bench in the garden of St Mellitus as they will have more choice of outlets from which to buy the substance that is destroying their lives.Some say it’s a good compromise as the initial request was for a 24 hour licence. I think that’s a defeatist view. I think it’s bad news for our area and we should have resisted it with all the means at our disposal. But maybe I’ve got too much faith in democracy.I would have hoped that local councillors would be the ones to defend our community from the malign avarice of big businesses pedalling alcohol to vulnerable addicts and petrol to the car dependent who are poisoning our atmosphere. But no! The licensee is a councillor himself, Shital Manro.Ok maybe that does fit the character of such a person if they are Conservative. But again, no! He is a Labour councillor. The Ealing Council website tells us that he holds a licence for six petrol stations in the borough. How is helping ordinary people? He’s just profiting from two of our century’s most abused substances.People of North Greenford, don’t vote for this man at the next election. He has made a mockery of our system.

Alan Anderson ● 4701d1 Comments ● 4701d

Greenford Redevelopment briefing, 21/11/2013

A briefing is being held regarding the redevelopment of the former GlaxoSmithKline site at the GSK site security office, Greenford Road (Thursday 21st November), ahead of the submission of the planning application in late November. I have serious concerns about what is being proposed and I feel that it will affect a great many more people than those who live in the immediate area. The cinema could be a good thing but does "a local food store" mean "supermarket"? Will it result in emissions from hundreds or thousands of extra cars in the area every day? How will it affect the shops that are already there? From what I've seen so far the development means even more "off the shelf" ugly architecture. How much more grey brick/weathered wooden panels/concrete can we take? They are a 21st century version of the red brick/white plastic stuff that was built in the 70s/80s. Will the tallest building be visible from the Horsenden Hill side? Will the development have a negative impact on the wildlife close to that section of the canal and change the nature of that place? Will the new development put off the many walkers who visit Greenford and spend money in the shops/pubs because the canal is a natural pleasant environment? It promises jobs but will they just be more part time minimum wage jobs? How many will the kind that pay a mortgage? Please look at the proposal and attend the briefing.  http://www.greenfordredevelopment.com/content/pdf/34_1383053613.pdf

Albertina McNeill ● 4703d1 Comments ● 4701d

5 Years Ago Today LBE Said YES  to Dickens Yard

Bonfire Night 2008 was the the fateful day that Councillor Potts' Planning Committee said YES to St George's Dickens Yard proposal to build 698 homes behind the Town Hall. How ironic it is that exactly five year later the current Planning Committee will decide tonight whether St George's 'inducement' of £3.65 million to LBE will persuade elected Members to remove the 2008 planning requirement for St George to build 59 Affordable Homes at Dickens Yard. After five years a quick assessment of where we are with Dickens Yard might be useful.+ 50% of flat sales have been to international buyers+ Still bargains to be had. 12, three bedded flats at £1.1+ million each are still on the market+ No retail occupation of the ground floors of the residential tower blocks already built. Retail experts predict these retail sites will never be occupied.+ The latest block under construction is huge. 13 storeys and still growing. You can now see it as you approach from Ealing Common around about Silom Village restaurant.+ The hole that is being dug now is vast. It looks like the result of an asteroid strike. Go and park in the never full Springbridge Road car park and marvel at the depth.The key questions asked in 2008 still remain. Exactly which local housing problem does Dickens Yard address? Why has a private company been given control of 4.4 acres of public land till then year 2258?Drag out the dynamite.....

Eric Alan Leach ● 4703d1 Comments ● 4703d