London mayor wants to ban cars in some areas after attack

a reply to: TonyS

Ok here is why this is dumb

It’s not that there may not be reason me to do this policy

It’s that for the mayor of London to suggest this in any way in conjunction with helping stop terrorism, especially the day after an attack is laughable

Imagine after the Orlando night club shooting that the mayor of Orlando comes out and says

“Well we are going to limit how long night clubs can be open, and limit how many people can be in them at a time”

Now there may be very good reasons to do that

To many people in the clubs could be a fire hazard. Being open too late could lead to more drinking and driving

And yet the mayor would have rightly lambasted for suggesting this in response to a terror attack

Same with khan here

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Eh is missed it was a joke, my bad

Look I don’t mind changing policy, but if this is his priority after a terror attack, it’s pretty laughable

It not his priority its just an idea that he has backed which I believe has came from the Transport secretary who I am going to assume (apologies if I am wrong) you wouldn't know form the agricultural secretary.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has told Sky News "there may well be a case" for pedestrianising parts of Westminster in the wake of another suspected terror attack.

Link< br />
So despite what the Right wing media is telling you, no this is not Khan wanting to ban the car in some knee jerk reaction, he has said:

"I've been an advocate for a while now of part-pedestrianizing Parliament Square, but making sure we don't lose the wonderful thing about our democracy, which is people having access to parliamentarians, people being able to lobby Parliament, visitors being able to come and visit Parliament," Khan told the channel.

Now if you note, he says he has been a fan of pedestrianising the area around parliament for a while. This is true, the idea of banning some cars around London has been floated for quite some time, mainly to reduce air pollution. So its not like this has been his "priority" after the terrorist attack its just that its a priority of the Mayors office to reduce pollution around London which seems reasonable.

Petrol and diesel cars will be banned in certain areas of East London later this year.

From July 2018, petrol and diesel cars will face restrictions during peak hours in parts of East London.

Islington and Hackney Council confirmed that the plans to introduced the ban had been signed off this week following a public consultation in February.

Link

So you see when you look more into this, if you look at what people are actually saying and don't just stick to the right wing media fake-news machine then you actually learn a little bit more about this. There are a number of very good reasons to pedestrianise city centres reducing the chance for a crazy terrorist to drive into a group cyclists is one of those reasons but to say its became his priority is untrue.

a reply to: Grambler

Man you have really lost me here and I usually agree with a lot of what you post.

So..........after the OKC bombing, if I remember correctly, didn't they start putting barricades around Federal buildings?

Don't they have similar obstructions in key areas of DC?

You got terrorists, you take measures, no?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Pedestrianisation of town / city centres can be a good thing.
Certainly made things a lot safer and serene in the town where I live.....only thing is it was the final nail in the coffin for many small businesses but hey...?

And its not as if that's the primary reason for this suggestion.

Sometimes I think Sadiq Khan is a well intentioned idiot, other times I think he's a complete knobheaad.
Probably the former on this occasion.

Well, with pedestrianisation they only went half-way. My town has done the same with their high street. It's really nice like a Disney resort, with trees and an outdoor market. But in sunlight it becomes a baking hot desert, at night it becomes a ghost town and in winter, it becomes a freezing cold tundra. Homeless people end up sleeping in the doorways of banks.

They should put a glass canopy over the top like a railway station, then it could be air conditioned and there would be all that extra retail space. This was done in a place called Trondheim Torg. They turned a quadrangle surrounded by shops into a huge shopping mall.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Politico the site I used is left wing

He brought this up in response to the terror attack

It is a dumb thing to do to sme love terror as you admitted

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He brought this up in response to the terror attack

It is a dumb thing to do to sme love terror as you admitted

Yes but he is not doing it over terrorism, actually he's not doing anything just that he backs the idea.

This is his actual policy towards transportation in London and its heavily focused on reducing auto-mobiles within London. So stop pretending this is something new just because you've only just heard about it.

It was the transport secretary who has said that banning cars at parliament could be considered.

Khan has been a long time supporter of this as I have shown you.

Also read what I am saying carefully I am saying that if terrorism is your only reason for its, then its stupid, but when its also going to reduce air pollution, congestion and traffic accidents as well as also reducing the opportunity for terrorist attacks it becomes a very good idea.

Why would you disagree with this?

a reply to: Grambler

Knives are not banned, access and acquiring ability has been curtailed somewhat on certain "classes" of items, including knuckledusters.

These items, such as knuckledusters, machetes, "zombie knives" etc were already regulated somewhat, possession of them in public was always illegal without a very good reason.

I wouldn't qoute me on this but I'm fairly certain a blade longer than 3 inches is considered a weapon and is illegal to be carried on person without good reason, courts decide reasonability.

So knives are NOT banned, I can go out right now and purchase a knive. I can legally order knives online too, seemingly I cannot have a machete delivered to my house though as this would be considered a regulated tool now. I can still go to my local gun store (yep we have gun stores) and buy weapons, I'd assume all I'd need is ID although in the past I was never prompted to produce ID, different story for firearms.

As for banning cars in places such as Parliament Square, it's a potential possibility and not as retarded as it sounds. Personally I'd go another route of building safety features into busy roads in areas such as this or heavy commercial areas.

Having seen several people walk out into traffic for various reasons, reasons such as old age, drunkenness, kids bwing kids or bus drivers failing to be aware of their surroundings I can honestly say it's a sad state of affairs watching people lose life and limb in easily avoidable situations.

You see it's not just about terrorism and access, it's about safety too. As is I think Khan is an idiot but as an issue this does go beyond terrorism also, we've had a few incidents in recent time similar in nature that were considered accidents.

Easily avoidable IMHO.

Ban heavy vehicles from high pedestrian areas, facilitate alternatives for said vehicles and drastically improve roadside safety.

In my town they removed bollards and railings years ago... Low and behold... People started getting hit by traffic.

a reply to: lordcomac

Yes, but a car ban would also be green, so I'm sure the left will be all over this one.

a reply to: Grambler

This is all actually fiendishly perfect.

First you remove all means of self-defense. Then you remove all means of escape.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: cosmickat
I fail to see what is wrong with Khan's statement.
So what if they turn more of this busy area into a pedestrian zone ?
Good idea really.
Most town and city centres are already pedestrian only areas with traffic bollards etc.
Makes perfect sense to me..so people can walk safely.
Why is this even debatable ?

Its a good idea for a whole load of reasons,

reduces air politions, less congestion, less traffic accidents and yes, less opportunity for terrorists to drive into crowds of people just outside parliament.

Makes total sense.

Unless a politician who you don't like suggests it.

not even 1 thing u listed is true

u dont reduce anything bye having less road u just move where the cars are at

infact if this removes 1 parking spot u increase it bye having less parked cars

and with less road more time is spent at a stop burning fule and going nowhere

What I find most interesting about this is that it's directed at protecting the government buildings, while not addressing the fact that the bad guys would simply change their targets. So next you block vehicles from shopping areas and areas with a lot of pedestrians. Then what, schools and churches and then ......................

Going after the weapon instead of the real problems will never stop anything. It's just pandering to constituents, nothing more. It's hardly a serious solution to serious problems like mental illness or terrorism.

What would be the eventual outcome a few years down the road? Perhaps banning any group from gathering anywhere and tracking everyone 24/7, because I think that's in the future and not just for one country. Terrorism is a tool that I'm not so sure they want to go away, if it makes it easier to control us all.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If people looked at what he is saying without their anti-khan spectacles on they might actually realise what he is suggesting is perfectly sensible.

Yeah I totally agree.

You know I think if cars were smashing into the gates outside the White House and Trump said that he was backing a plan to divert traffic away from the fence they would be all for it.

Mention that the brown man with a funny name who seems to be a bit of a liberal has had the same idea people freak out.

Surely you are not suggesting that some people on this site don't like him for racist reasons...

The horror.

Yes, of course, that would be the only possible reason no one can see the sheer and utter brilliance of leftist idiocy - it was proposed by someone of a different skin color. /sarcasm

originally posted by: markovian

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: cosmickat
I fail to see what is wrong with Khan's statement.
So what if they turn more of this busy area into a pedestrian zone ?
Good idea really.
Most town and city centres are already pedestrian only areas with traffic bollards etc.
Makes perfect sense to me..so people can walk safely.
Why is this even debatable ?

Its a good idea for a whole load of reasons,

reduces air politions, less congestion, less traffic accidents and yes, less opportunity for terrorists to drive into crowds of people just outside parliament.

Makes total sense.

Unless a politician who you don't like suggests it.

not even 1 thing u listed is true

u dont reduce anything bye having less road u just move where the cars are at

infact if this removes 1 parking spot u increase it bye having less parked cars

and with less road more time is spent at a stop burning fule and going nowhere

Well if you can find one single reputable study that says reducing the number of cars in city centres, increases pollution, traffic accidents and congestion within that area then fair enough.

If you can't then I think you will find that actually you are the one who is mistaken.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Jeez for someone who came on the thread saying this would be a dumb response to terrorism, then “joking” anyone who had a problem with it was racist, you sure are sure of yourself

The point khan was obviously talking about this BECAUSE the terror attack

It doesn’t matter that there are other good reasons to do this (which are debateable anyways)

He went on air the day after a terror attack, and is discussing a plan to solve air pollution?

Garbage

And when taken in context with his banning knives , a pattern is emerging

a reply to: Grambler

The point khan was obviously talking about this BECAUSE the terror attack

Nope, I have provided links that show he has been "Anti-car" if you want to use that phase since at least April 2017.

So your just flat out wrong.

And when taken in context with his banning knives , a pattern is emerging

I can buy a knife, what is banned is brandishing a knife larger than 3.5 inches in public.

So you might want to take a bit of time to actually research this stuff because your claims are factually incorrect. Just like nobody is talking about banning cars, what they are talking about really is just making the area around parliament pedestrianised, there are loads of such areas in the UK, its not about banning cars.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Grambler

Man you have really lost me here and I usually agree with a lot of what you post.

So..........after the OKC bombing, if I remember correctly, didn't they start putting barricades around Federal buildings?

Don't they have similar obstructions in key areas of DC?

You got terrorists, you take measures, no?

Anyone to the measure of banning cars on pedestrian streets to solve terror?

You got any audio of any city or country leader addressing the public the day after saying we should cut down on traffic or anything of that nature to help stop terrorism?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So your contention is that khan was going to go on the bbc and discuss these cars being banned on that day regardless of the terror attack?

Hahahahaha!

That is even worse!

So instead of addressing a terror attack in his city, he takes his time to discuss air pollution!

Hahahaha!

Wow

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: markovian

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: cosmickat
I fail to see what is wrong with Khan's statement.
So what if they turn more of this busy area into a pedestrian zone ?
Good idea really.
Most town and city centres are already pedestrian only areas with traffic bollards etc.
Makes perfect sense to me..so people can walk safely.
Why is this even debatable ?

Its a good idea for a whole load of reasons,

reduces air politions, less congestion, less traffic accidents and yes, less opportunity for terrorists to drive into crowds of people just outside parliament.

Makes total sense.

Unless a politician who you don't like suggests it.

not even 1 thing u listed is true

u dont reduce anything bye having less road u just move where the cars are at

infact if this removes 1 parking spot u increase it bye having less parked cars

and with less road more time is spent at a stop burning fule and going nowhere

Well if you can find one single reputable study that says reducing the number of cars in city centres, increases pollution, traffic accidents and congestion within that area then fair enough.

If you can't then I think you will find that actually you are the one who is mistaken.

reduceing where cars can be dose not remove the cars

a reply to: Grambler



Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I have said because I have ripped your argument to bits?

Kahn has been on record since last year saying that he wants to reduce the number of cars in central London.

The Transport secretary has said that he thinks there is a case to be made for looking at pedestrianising areas around parliament because it would prevent individuals using vehicles as a weapon.

This is inline with Khans transport for London policy of reducing the number of car journeys in London and he has long been an advocate of this for a whole load of reasons.

Thats all. This idea that he has come out the day after the attack and said he is going to ban cars is flat out wrong.

He has talked quite a bit about this latest attack, so again your wrong to claim that the day after the attack he is using it to push some kind of agenda for air-pollution.

You are wrong on this, won't admit your wrong on it, so now you are deliberately trying to twist my words.

The post that I made at the top of this page (page 3) explains all of this with links.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If people looked at what he is saying without their anti-khan spectacles on they might actually realise what he is suggesting is perfectly sensible.

Yeah I totally agree.

You know I think if cars were smashing into the gates outside the White House and Trump said that he was backing a plan to divert traffic away from the fence they would be all for it.

Mention that the brown man with a funny name who seems to be a bit of a liberal has had the same idea people freak out.

Surely you are not suggesting that some people on this site don't like him for racist reasons...

The horror.

Yes, of course, that would be the only possible reason no one can see the sheer and utter brilliance of leftist idiocy - it was proposed by someone of a different skin color. /sarcasm

Not even remotely close to what I said but well done for trying.

I will state outright that a significant amount of criticism he gets on this site, particularly from. American members, is based on racism and bigotry. Hope that clears things up for you.