[David9694]

A new catch-all Tea Shop thread for those miscellaneous new stories that don’t quite fit with parking, crashing into buildings or trapped/prisoners in their homes. 

Topic

[David9694]

Council ‘ignoring people’

Council ‘ignoring people’ over Oxford congestion charge

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25405922.council-ignoring-people-oxford-congestion-charge/

One to watch here in the next few days. Somewhat depressing that Labour are opposing the Lib Dems here: 

‘The statement added that people needed “accessible alternatives” to car travel and that the council should bring buses back into public control rather than “asking Oxfordshire’s poorest to pay charges they can’t afford”.’

 

[HoarseMann]

Self confessed “Mr Toad” of

Self confessed “Mr Toad” of the roads Christopher Biggins, who complained about cycle lanes, is banned from driving due to failing an eyesight test. Time to give an e-bike and those cycle lanes a go?!

[mdavidford]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Think someone at the BBC needs a maths refresher:

Good news

[Rendel Harris]

Hirsute wrote:

Hirsute wrote:

You didn’t account for the 80% cancellation rate !

?? From another BBC report: “Figures obtained by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), through a Freedom of Information request, have shown the council generated £950,000 from the penalties between July 2023 and May 2025.” Didn’t see anything about cancellations? (Tired tonight, may be missing a gag, if so apologies)

[Hirsute]

You didn’t account for the 80
You didn’t account for the 80% cancellation rate !

[Rendel Harris]

Think someone at the BBC

Think someone at the BBC needs a maths refresher:

BBC wrote:

The council can issue fines of £70 to those breaking restrictions. According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, a Freedom of Information request showed nearly 28,000 fines had been issued to motorists within the past two years, totalling more than £200,000.

Even if every single person fined paid up on time and got 50% off for doing so it would still equate to £980,000.

[ktache]

28,000 fines in two years.

28,000 fines in two years.

Otherwise law abiding…

[HoldingOn]

Man fined three times over

Man fined three times over school parking rules

Mr Collis wrote:

”Everyone tries to get out of the safe haven by 08:30 BST. But because so many people are parking at the top of the zone to avoid it, it all gets blocked off.”

oh – wait a minute. plot twist!

Mr Collis wrote:

Mr Collis said he had been fined because his permit, allowing him access, had expired.

“I’ve been fined a few times. Sometimes my permit has run out but that’s my fault. The cynic in me thinks [the council] have done this to make money.”

“Man fined three times over poor admin” – not quite as clickbaitable.

[chrisonabike]

What could say “we may make

David9694 wrote:

You can’t have somewhere to live because cars 

What could say “we may make pledges about ‘nicer places’, ‘accessibility’, ‘environmental goals’ etc. but in practice the current status quo of motornormativity always trumps that” more than “build a motorway through an existing town”?

…Oh, I know – build a new town around a motorway!

Article is paywalled so I can’t tell if they’re going to divert the motorway?  I would guess not because “cost and time”.  And the rather “narrow country lanes” on the Pendock to Redmarley road and Cook’s Lane to the north will no doubt clog with masses of traffic, unless the idea is indeed to “upgrade” those to bypasses?

[chrisonabike]

David9694 wrote:

David9694 wrote:

You can’t have somewhere to live because cars 

Ramble about “growth”, prompted by “somewhere to live”:

Although of course people continue to be made homeless by natural changes and particularly war … I guess that’s not what this place is being built “for”.  (In the same way that “easing the pressure on housing” doesn’t directly deal with “but all those poor people living 20 to a room”.  And may not in fact trickle down to them.  Or if they do “move up the ladder” we may find that 25 more people move from elsewhere to replace them – presumably if they managed to survive / were worth it to someone to have there, others can…)

Historically places have developed around economic opportunity – people settle where they can find the means to “do well” or at least survive and raise children.  (Of course there are lots of factors, but people generally don’t choose to move to places with no means of subsistence).

So – what are the jobs which will attract people here or sustain them?  Are there local businesses in the region struggling to house workers?  Is there a massive new industry there?

I don’t know but doubt it – certainly isn’t the case for all the new developments in Edinburgh as far as I can see.  And if the former was the case of course we’ll just be creating lots more driven journeys unless the new workplaces are all within the town / connected via public transport (thought not).

Again – perhaps there’s a particular local reason but I would suspect that despite whatever is given as the reason on the surface (“but we need more homes” – just begs the question) we will continue to build and sell more houses as long as that makes money.  There’s your economic activity…

So what?  Way of the world.  However amid all the clamour about “immigration” and “this place is crowded now and full of non-locals / congestion / services are over-subscribed” people don’t seem to have addressed the notion that as we make a place (or our country) much ‘better’ than elsewhere people will try to move here to get a share of the potential benefits.  Which acts to reduce the imbalace.  And the pressure to do that is increased if our gain comes with the effect of making those other places (countries) worse.

Of course – individual humans aren’t permanent fixtures so “get it while you can” applies.  And perhaps all the above is completely irrelevant – maybe it’s just not possible for an alternative to be stable (or hard to maintain the “conspiracy”)?  The default is “competition for resources”.  So if we can’t leave or change the game the only rational move seems to be to keep playing, trying to beat others.  I just wonder if there’s a way to play that would reduce some of those consequences – but perhaps there are fewer “winning moves” that way or “internal competition” will put paid to that (see “unelectable”)?

[David9694]

You can’t have somewhere to

You can’t have somewhere to live because cars 

M50 traffic fears over new towns plan

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/25394748.m50-traffic-fears-new-towns-plan/

[David9694]

Over in fleet management

Over in fleet management there is a growing range of in vehicle tools (the good news is there’s money in reducing insurance costs, maintenance costs, losses and claims) that could be used to stop any unsuitable driver – at government level it’s now a positive choice no to do more of this. 

Driver Behaviour

https://www.verizonconnect.com/uk/features/immobilisation/?_gl=1*15t6qbk*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2IDFBhDCARIsABDKOJ6fFSHkJZ4ZVtTFVZ2OomsSsmNFjjfFkDqPcb3kuQrjrsBzQcLvn5oaAlGyEALw_wcB&gbraid=0AAAAADmHI1y1vvUgn5SZXEpMtUgp8zjna

[David9694]

Great time-saver you’ve got

Great time-saver you’ve got there. A rare instance where one of these has come to court. 

Driver wins five-year legal battle over £1 parking ticket

Multiple debt agencies chased him over the debt – which he didn’t actually owe

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/driver-wins-five-year-legal-10429828?int_source=nba

[ktache]

She doesn’t look angry enough

She doesn’t look angry enough in the photo.

And didn’t we all lose our Debenhams?

[Hirsute]

She can afford petrol and a

She can afford petrol and a car but she cannot afford a bus ticket but needs a bus pass instead.

Can’t walk either.

[Author]

Replies