Plans for a cycle superhighway in west London would cause more damage to a parish community than Hitler’s Second World War bombs, a church leader has claimed. Father Michael Dunne, of a church in Chiswick, has urged his congregation to pray that plans for a two-lane cycle path are scrapped after suggesting it would disrupt funeral processions. He accused Transport for London of proposing developments that would do more harm to the community than German planes during WW2 in a scathing Facebook post. And he said the “prospective trauma” would disrupt events taking place at The Church of Our Lady of Grace & St Edward, such as weddings, funerals and communions. ... It asks parishioners to “consider the impact” on “Sunday Mass congregations gathering on the pavement, the elderly, and families with children vs speeding cyclists. “Funerals: no right of way for carrying the coffin. No right of way for First Holy Communion and other processions. Weddings: no right of way for Brides in their wedding dresses.”
Lord Lawson has claimed that cycling is “doing more damage to London than almost anything since the Blitz.” Another Tory peer, Lord Higgins, has said that the Cycle Superhighways currently being built in the capital were responsible for more traffic jams and pollution. ... But Lord Lawson, a climate change denier who lives most of the time in France, also asked: “Is it not also hugely age discriminatory? There is a huge section of the population of a certain age, well represented in this House — I declare an interest — for whom cycling is not a practical option.” “I suggest to my noble friend that it is never too late to start,” was Lord Ahmad’s laconic reply.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Church claims west London cycle superhighway 'will do more damage than the Luftwaffe'https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/church-claims-west-london-cycle-superhighway-will-do-more-damage-than-the-luftwaffe-a3652441.html The same project is criticised by leading Tory Brexiteer who wanted French citizenship...Lord Lawson says cycling is most damaging thing for London since the Blitzhttps://road.cc/content/news/173223-lord-lawson-says-cycling-most-damaging-thing-london-blitz
Grassey wrote: » I've seen some of the 'material' circulating arounds residents in Blackrock. You'd swear that people will be blocked into their estates as the main road at the exit will have been taken away to put in cycling superhighways. People I know who are supportive of the changes from Blackrock Main St etc are swallowing this guff
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The Deans Grange peasants are revolting too.
Stark wrote: » "I wish they wore nothing at all".
Deleted User wrote: » Theres more to come, he'll be on about the city centre in a bit.
buffalo wrote: » Can't stand to listen, interested to hear how he frames the 80%+ in favour of restrictions in his own poll.
breezy1985 wrote: » Todays favourite is the guy claiming that DCC are trying to force the old out of the city centre by banning cars. Surely if you are too old to get on a bus you are probably not fit to be driving a car but hey logic never comes into it
zell12 wrote: » Sindo letter
Macy0161 wrote: » They get the bus for feckin free anyway!
Eamonnator wrote: » Yes, I feckin' do, fair play and well earned. I also get free flu jab, free T.V. licence and an electricity(?) allowance.
Cyclists and motor tax Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 00:06 Sir, – Perhaps you could refrain from publishing any letter which refers to “road tax”. This colloquial term belies its nature, which is more accurately communicated by its actual name, motor tax. Calling it road tax gives the impression that it is a beneficent levy on motorists that covers the cost of building and maintaining our public road infrastructure, for the good of all – motorists, bus passengers and cyclists alike. However, this is paid from general taxation – €1.3 billion according to the latest budget. Motor tax is a charge to take a destructive and polluting vehicle on to the public roads, and it has raised far less than even €1 billion in any of the last five years. Far from motorists paying for our roads, their use is subsidised by all taxpayers. Please, no more talk of “road tax”. – Yours, etc, BRIAN McARDLE, Leixlip, Co Kildare.
Stark wrote: » Someone posted a great breakdown a while back which unfortunately I can't find but it showed that when you included all costs/benefits (pollution, maintenance, cost of providing parking, healthcare, injury claims vs income from motor tax, fuel taxes, VRT, insurance levies, economic activity etc.), then the gap was far more than 300 million. Cycling on the other hand was a significant net benefit for every km travelled by bike. The truth is the total opposite to the "hard pressed motorist" myth.
fat bloke wrote: » In a societal sense that's certainly true, we're all paying for our collective motoring excesses, but there's no doubt that, for the individual driver (and I'm a keen drivist myself ), the cost of buying, maintaining and running a car is awfully expensive. My motor tax alone would buy me, annually, a very nice bike indeed. In a way, it is the very fact that the driver is (literally) so invested in their car that incentivises its use, or rather disincentivises its non-use. There's a long argument in favour of moving motor tax (essentially a standing/driveway charge) to fuel (a genuine usage tax) that would put people more at ease about leaving the car at home and using an alternative mode of transport, whatever that would be. .
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/892f365931e5cb4ba5c9d4ce2c7da299.svg)
