Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

How many armed police would have stopped the Manchester bomber?...........Zero that's how many.

You make a good point.

[Chloé Palmas]

*Sigh*

https://news.sky.com/story/transport...ttack-11473182

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

*Sigh*

https://news.sky.com/story/transport...ttack-11473182

I think it should be pedestrianised. It was a bad decision of BoJo's to cancel the scheme.

How about employing MORE police as well.

A lot more of central London should be pedestrianised anyway. It would help with the absurd levels of pollution the city gets as well. The streets weren't designed for that level of traffic. You could just put up bollards which can be put down for deliveries, official vehicles and the emergency services.

Oxford Street is the first that needs to be pedestrianised.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

A lot more of central London should be pedestrianised anyway. It would help with the absurd levels of pollution the city gets as well. The streets weren't designed for that level of traffic. You could just put up bollards which can be put down for deliveries, official vehicles and the emergency services.

Oxford Street is the first that needs to be pedestrianised.

Sadly those plans were ditched for good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730

Originally Posted by denphone

Sadly those plans were ditched for good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730

It's mad IMO. Traffic moves at a snails pace and this iconic London street has it's pavements packed with people having to share it with cars. It would be so much nicer if it were more like European cities with this large pedistrained street which lots of room for people to walk around, sit, watch the buskers and maybe have some more plants e.t.c.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's mad IMO. Traffic moves at a snails pace and this iconic London street has it's pavements packed with people having to share it with cars. It would be so much nicer if it were more like European cities with this large pedistrained street which lots of room for people to walk around, sit, watch the buskers and maybe have some more plants e.t.c.

As many of us know the iconic streets of London were built when cars were not around and to me that is the clear hub of the chronic problems we have now in parts of London as the great thing in our city centre down here is the vast majority of it is Pedestrianised as the only vehicles that can come in certain parts of it are the delivery lorries and vans and that makes it so much better then it was compared to 30 years ago down here.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think it should be pedestrianised. It was a bad decision of BoJo's to cancel the scheme.

Originally Posted by Damien

A lot more of central London should be pedestrianised anyway. It would help with the absurd levels of pollution the city gets as well. The streets weren't designed for that level of traffic. You could just put up bollards which can be put down for deliveries, official vehicles and the emergency services.

Oxford Street is the first that needs to be pedestrianised.

Originally Posted by denphone

Sadly those plans were ditched for good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730

Originally Posted by Damien

It's mad IMO. Traffic moves at a snails pace and this iconic London street has it's pavements packed with people having to share it with cars. It would be so much nicer if it were more like European cities with this large pedistrained street which lots of room for people to walk around, sit, watch the buskers and maybe have some more plants e.t.c.

See, I agree on all those points.

Totally - 100%.

You know why? Because they are totally valid and good reasons to avoid certain parts of the town having commercial vehicles used in them. (I can't attest to your final point Den as I was only just born 30 years ago but I will take your word as accurate on it. )

Notice in how all of those posts above not one of you mentioned what a great idea it was to ban cars, for security reasons?

That's because it is not. It is rather "British" in its ways (ban the instrument / weapon / object etc), but with all things British, somewhat quaintly idiotic in principle, fostered on with a whole load of passive cringe and vomit for merit.

I mean seriously...who here thinks that pedestrianizing the area for the purpose of security is a good idea? After 9/11 every civil liberty lost was like "letting the terrorists win" in the mind of opponents to things like the patriot act etc. This time what will people say - this is like letting bad drivers win? I mean seriously.

You know who else would be offended by this? All the environmentalists / friends of the earth crowd etc who genuinely do care for the planet and want to do all the things that reduce pollution / congestion etc? Why? Because instead of considering their proposals on the merits, you are using their cause (and them) to justify an idiotic police chief's plans, for yet another pointless ban.

US conservatives usually say stuff like "better ban all those knives" every time that there is a mass knife attack in London or Paris. "Better ban those cars" came up after Nice (and the lorry attack) yet this really is a serious proposal by the met in how to combat behavior that masquerades as terrorism.

Heero_yuy's point about hacking is a serious concern but at least there is an element of seriousness to his point ; the commissioner has just gone off the deep end with her level of crazy though.

If I was interested in just playing politics with this I would have just said "better ban all cars" at the start of the thread...little did I know my flippant / sarcastic jibe would end up being the policy consideration of the met. Dear oh dear.

The idea of less congestion and bringing down pollution rates is admirable. The idea of the population being less densely centered around big towns can also be great (so long as you don't have the philosophy of the Sierra club) but for the appropriate geological and environmental reasons. Not for the purpose of national security.


Oh and one addition: If some of you really do think that banning cars is the way to go (for security purposes), then please say so. I think that it is a ridiculous idea but if you support it please don't hide behind the skirt or dress hems of "environmentalism" or "better mobility access etc". I have already been told by a moderator to keep this on topic so assuming that we're not going to turn this thread into a thread on "green peace utopias VS the daggers of urbanization / gentrification" then perhaps a little clarity on how the comments from the met have some (even minuscule) pertinence in preventing terror attacks would be nice to hear. (Assuming that there are any?)

Would still be helpful if we had MORE police however.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Would still be helpful if we had MORE police however.

Indeed it would but cutting the Police numbers rather then adding to the numbers seems to be the fashion currently..

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

See, I agree on all those points.

Totally - 100%.

You know why? Because they are totally valid and good reasons to avoid certain parts of the town having commercial vehicles used in them. (I can't attest to your final point Den as I was only just born 30 years ago but I will take your word as accurate on it. )

Notice in how all of those posts above not one of you mentioned what a great idea it was to ban cars, for security reasons?

That's because it is not. It is rather "British" in its ways (ban the instrument / weapon / object etc), but with all things British, somewhat quaintly idiotic in principle, fostered on with a whole load of passive cringe and vomit for merit.

I mean seriously...who here thinks that pedestrianizing the area for the purpose of security is a good idea? After 9/11 every civil liberty lost was like "letting the terrorists win" in the mind of opponents to things like the patriot act etc. This time what will people say - this is like letting bad drivers win? I mean seriously.

You know who else would be offended by this? All the environmentalists / friends of the earth crowd etc who genuinely do care for the planet and want to do all the things that reduce pollution / congestion etc? Why? Because instead of considering their proposals on the merits, you are using their cause (and them) to justify an idiotic police chief's plans, for yet another pointless ban.

US conservatives usually say stuff like "better ban all those knives" every time that there is a mass knife attack in London or Paris. "Better ban those cars" came up after Nice (and the lorry attack) yet this really is a serious proposal by the met in how to combat behavior that masquerades as terrorism.

Heero_yuy's point about hacking is a serious concern but at least there is an element of seriousness to his point ; the commissioner has just gone off the deep end with her level of crazy though.

If I was interested in just playing politics with this I would have just said "better ban all cars" at the start of the thread...little did I know my flippant / sarcastic jibe would end up being the policy consideration of the met. Dear oh dear.

The idea of less congestion and bringing down pollution rates is admirable. The idea of the population being less densely centered around big towns can also be great (so long as you don't have the philosophy of the Sierra club) but for the appropriate geological and environmental reasons. Not for the purpose of national security.


Oh and one addition: If some of you really do think that banning cars is the way to go (for security purposes), then please say so. I think that it is a ridiculous idea but if you support it please don't hide behind the skirt or dress hems of "environmentalism" or "better mobility access etc". I have already been told by a moderator to keep this on topic so assuming that we're not going to turn this thread into a thread on "green peace utopias VS the daggers of urbanization / gentrification" then perhaps a little clarity on how the comments from the met have some (even minuscule) pertinence in preventing terror attacks would be nice to hear. (Assuming that there are any?)

Pedestrianising an area very rarely means it is not possible to drive vehicle down it and I doubt there are many, if any, such schemes been done in the UK for security reasons.

You can get automatic bollards and other devices but these are not the norm, and in many cases where these are employed a vehicle can round by driving on the pavement, again highlighting that they are not there for “security”

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Would still be helpful if we had MORE police however.

Oh I agree on this point but again that comes back to May's tenure as Home Sec and I criticize her way too much ; it would just com off as me taking another swipe at her so it is much easier with you making some of these points - at least people see that everyone criticizes her, not just me.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Oh I agree on this point but again that comes back to May's tenure as Home Sec and I criticize her way too much ; it would just com off as me taking another swipe at her so it is much easier with you making some of these points - at least people see that everyone criticizes her, not just me.

Nope, it is just you. We all like her

[Chloé Palmas]

Ha, that was hilarious.

Okay, to try be more objective it was also Cameron and Osbourne's austerity measures that led to the forced cuts.

Of course if May wasn't such a weak leader of her own department then she could have put a stop to it.

Shit, I went back to bashing her.

Well at least it shows that a PM and CotE get the final say, like now when she says so, other colleagues in cabinet liste...shit, wrong again!

Well at least she gets to determine who serves where in what office etc and...oh, no that's crap, too.

Well, I tried.