London mayor wants to ban cars in some areas after attack

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said Wednesday he wants to ban cars from certain areas of Parliament Square in response to a suspected terror attack on Tuesday.

Three people were injured after police say a car collided with a number of cyclists and pedestrians before crashing into barriers that line the Houses of Parliament.

Khan told BBC radio that making certain areas only available to pedestrians would provide more safety to both citizens and buildings in the surrounding area. But he also said the city would need to ensure people “don’t lose one important thing about our democracy: People having an access to parliamentarians, people being able to lobby parliament and being able to come and visit parliament.”

www.politico.eu...

Yes this is a real statement by the London mayor.

At what point will all of the knnive and car banning become enough for people to look at how to stop the people trying to committ the violence, as opposed to the weapons they use to do it?

And btw, this isnt just a London problem.

Its more of a general question; how much of your way of life are you willing to give up to feel safe.

Elimination of privacy? Warrantless spying? Removal of would be weapons such as knives or cars?

Its a very serious and difficult question.

However, it does seem laughable that the mayor of London who put bans of knives now seeing that that didnt stop violence is going gto ban cars in some areas.

originally posted by: Grambler

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said Wednesday he wants to ban cars from certain areas of Parliament Square in response to a suspected terror attack on Tuesday.

Three people were injured after police say a car collided with a number of cyclists and pedestrians before crashing into barriers that line the Houses of Parliament.

Khan told BBC radio that making certain areas only available to pedestrians would provide more safety to both citizens and buildings in the surrounding area. But he also said the city would need to ensure people “don’t lose one important thing about our democracy: People having an access to parliamentarians, people being able to lobby parliament and being able to come and visit parliament.”

www.politico.eu...

Yes this is a real statement by the London mayor.

At what point will all of the knnive and car banning become enough for people to look at how to stop the people trying to committ the violence, as opposed to the weapons they use to do it?

And btw, this isnt just a London problem.

Its more of a general question; how much of your way of life are you willing to give up to feel safe.

Elimination of privacy? Warrantless spying? Removal of would be weapons such as knives or cars?

Its a very serious and difficult question.

However, it does seem laughable that the mayor of London who put bans of knives now seeing that that didnt stop violence is going gto ban cars in some areas.

I know, let's just ban murder or terrorism! Oh wait...

a reply to: Grambler

So, this supposedly intelligent elected official is under the impression that someone who is trying to run over pedestrians in a vehicle will be stopped by a sign that says they're not allowed to drive there?
The law against driving over to that area is somehow more influential than the law against murdering people?

I mean... really?

a reply to: Grambler

I remember someone making the joke that Knives should be banned, early in the gun debate, now, I am starting to think that Idocracy wasn't a movie at all, but a premonition/documentary.

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: Grambler

So, this supposedly intelligent elected official is under the impression that someone who is trying to run over pedestrians in a vehicle will be stopped by a sign that says they're not allowed to drive there?
The law against driving over to that area is somehow more influential than the law against murdering people?

I mean... really?

LOL, if they only had a law against killing other people..........

a reply to: Grambler

LOL ban cars. WOW

Ban everything except the obvious 'certain' people problem. Don't want to offend anyone but we can accept a few dead bodies every few days from terrorist related attacks. Sadistic Khan's logic.

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: Grambler

So, this supposedly intelligent elected official is under the impression that someone who is trying to run over pedestrians in a vehicle will be stopped by a sign that says they're not allowed to drive there?
The law against driving over to that area is somehow more influential than the law against murdering people?

I mean... really?

Yes very true.

However, I assume his plan would include the placing of bollards to stop cars from hitting people.

So i guess means they will just have to drive to the next street over to kill pedestrians.

Honestly, this was a joke that was always pushed in the gun debate.

"You say we should ban guns because people die? well more people die in car wrecks, so should we just ban cars?"

And people would say that was an absurd analogy that would never happen.

Mr. Khan begs to differ apparently.

a reply to: Grambler
It would seem that Khan's idea of bollards and barriers will only serve to protect members of parliament and people in the establishment. Anyone outside the protected zone just keep your eyes open for crazies in cars.

Quick nurse, get me another band aid for this bullet wound.

In fact, just bring the box.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Grambler
It would seem that Khan's idea of bollards and barriers will only serve to protect members of parliament and people in the establishment. Anyone outside the protected zone just keep your eyes open for crazies in cars.

Yes that is also a serious consideration.

I guess the pleabs will have to just suck it up and get ran over.

But as long as the politicians are safe from those dastardly cars, then all is well.

a reply to: Grambler

Damn, just damn...what are they going to do about those sharp bits on the plastic wrap dispenser?

a reply to: Grambler

London mayor wants to ban cars in some areas after attack

Yes people Assault cars is the scourge of civilization.

Actually I don't think that terrorism is a biggest reason for this, I think it would work just in terms of preventing congestion and pollution in the middle of London because it can be awful at times, this could be a good idea.

There is already congestion charging so I would think it would be simple enough to change that system to say only vehicles that meet a particular criteria can enter into the centre of London.

Now sure as a side-effect of this you would reduce the opportunity for people to use cars as weapons in the areas of London with a high number of pedestrians in terrorist attacks but I don't believe that is or should be the primary reason for banning personal vehicles in central London.

Banning cars because nutters like to drive cars into people however is an utterly stupid reason, you ban cars then they will use knifes, ban knifes (good luck trying that), they will use screw drivers, stop selling any pointy things to people then they will just start using improvised weapons. Really all you are going to do with this utterly stupid idea that banning things is going to stop terrorists is slightly inconvenience the terrorist who now needs a new plan but massively inconvenience Joe public who can't chop up an onion or drive to the work in the morning.

Never waste a good terrorist attack.
- H. Clinton


Death by a thousand cuts I tell ya. Each tiny attack brings a little more "security".

Ok taking all bets now. Which country and city does everyone think will be the first to ban non automated vehicles for 'public safety'. Can't use a car to kill people if you can't control it. Come on it's coming where's it gonna be first??

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.

a reply to: Freeborn

Yeah it can be bad for small businesses. Thats the only problem with it, its that when it comes to commercial deliveries but I don't think its a insurmountable problem.

There are lots of advantages, you reduce air pollution, congestion, traffic accidents and yes, finally like I said it does reduce the opportunity for a crazed terrorist to slam his new people carrier into a crowd of people standing outside parliament. That however for me is not the reason why you should do it, there are far better reasons for it.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

To be fair, I've just read a less alarmist article on the subject and it seems Sadiq Khan is actually only giving somewhat cautious backing to the idea and admits that there needs to be a thorough investigation into the feasibility of such a proposal.

I suspect such an investigation would be a long, drawn out process - bureaucrats milking it for everything - so not likely to be implemented any time soon.