Conservatives invoke constitutional power to force new Surbiton 20mph speed limit vote

Conservatives evoke constitutional power to delay Surbiton 20mph speed limit decision

Conservatives evoke constitutional power to delay Surbiton 20mph speed limit decision

First published in News
Last updated
This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

A proposed 20mph speed limit in Surbiton town centre may not come into force after a political spat between councillors.

Liberal Democrats voted through plans for the limit - but Conservatives immediately invoked a little-known consitutional power to drag the matter before next month's full Kingston Council meeting.

Tory councillor Richard Hudson had introduced an amendment, voted down on Tuesday night, to create 20mph zones outside schools only.

He said he was concerned about potential for escalating costs, and said the "ridiculous" original scheme was "fantasy land".

He added: "When a committee [is] about to do something that's completely bonkers and you have the option to effectively bring it under further scrutiny, that to me is a very sensible use of full council.

"I've got no problem with 20mph zones outside schools."

The council's constitution allows three councillors to club together after a vote and call the matter before a full council meeting.

Malcolm Self, Liberal Democrat chairman of the Surbiton neighbourhood committee, said: "The point about neighbourhood committees is it's local democracy.

"If any decision that three councillors don't like gets called in and goes to full council, then what's the point of neighbourhoods?

"When we had three Liberal Democrats in Maldens and Coombe, and decisions were made in Maldens and Coombe that they didn't agree with, they didn't choose this mode of getting it to full council."

Coun Hudson added: "I think it was the right thing to do.

"They can do the same thing if they wish.

"I really didn't want to turn it into a political bunfight."

The 20mph zone would have included St Mark's Hill, Claremont Road, Surbiton Hill Road, Surbiton Road, Balaclava Road, Adelaide Road, Brighton Road and Avenue Elmers.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:23am Thu 4 Sep 14

ANakar says...

Thank goodness. Some sense shown on the night. Now let's get this horrible proposal booted out altogether, to protect our lovely town from the few dregs of society trying to ruin it.
Thank goodness. Some sense shown on the night. Now let's get this horrible proposal booted out altogether, to protect our lovely town from the few dregs of society trying to ruin it. ANakar
  • Score: -18

12:34pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Bigdai100 says...

Shameful behaviour, the Conservatives courted environmental groups across the borough in the run up to the election. To stand against a measure widely welcomed by the community is a betrayal of that. How anyone can believe that town centres and residential roads are improved by more and faster cars is beyond me.
Shameful behaviour, the Conservatives courted environmental groups across the borough in the run up to the election. To stand against a measure widely welcomed by the community is a betrayal of that. How anyone can believe that town centres and residential roads are improved by more and faster cars is beyond me. Bigdai100
  • Score: 32

12:59pm Thu 4 Sep 14

berrybabe says...

Bigdai100 wrote:
Shameful behaviour, the Conservatives courted environmental groups across the borough in the run up to the election. To stand against a measure widely welcomed by the community is a betrayal of that. How anyone can believe that town centres and residential roads are improved by more and faster cars is beyond me.
KIngston Conservatives make empty promises to get elected?
And ursine defecation occurs in forested areas!

Only the utterly naive would have believed the pro-cycling platitudes tweeted by the likes of Anthea Craig and co before the election. When it comes to road safety, and protecting cyclists/pedestrians
, Kingston's Tories are dangerous unreconstructed morons.
[quote][p][bold]Bigdai100[/bold] wrote: Shameful behaviour, the Conservatives courted environmental groups across the borough in the run up to the election. To stand against a measure widely welcomed by the community is a betrayal of that. How anyone can believe that town centres and residential roads are improved by more and faster cars is beyond me.[/p][/quote]KIngston Conservatives make empty promises to get elected? And ursine defecation occurs in forested areas! Only the utterly naive would have believed the pro-cycling platitudes tweeted by the likes of Anthea Craig and co before the election. When it comes to road safety, and protecting cyclists/pedestrians , Kingston's Tories are dangerous unreconstructed morons. berrybabe
  • Score: 25

1:09pm Thu 4 Sep 14

grace86 says...

The Tories have shown their reactionary backward looking colours here. The Luddite Tories have turned their backs on

1. the majority of residents in the consultation who wanted their streets to be 20mph.
2. all schools in the area who passionately supported this scheme to protect our children at the school gates.
3. The council's own qualified traffic engineers who designed the scheme.
4. The massively growing number of cyclists that use Surbiton station.
The Tories have shown their reactionary backward looking colours here. The Luddite Tories have turned their backs on 1. the majority of residents in the consultation who wanted their streets to be 20mph. 2. all schools in the area who passionately supported this scheme to protect our children at the school gates. 3. The council's own qualified traffic engineers who designed the scheme. 4. The massively growing number of cyclists that use Surbiton station. grace86
  • Score: 29

1:28pm Thu 4 Sep 14

grace86 says...

And what's with the Comet / Guardian headline, claiming that this an attempt to "delay" this scheme. It's nothing of the sort.

The only reason to "call in" the decision is to scupper it.
To overturn the democratic wishes of Surbiton town centre residents, and the Surbiton Neighbourhood committee itself.

If the Tories supported this best-practice designed 20mph zone, all they had to do was accept the wishes of Surbiton town centre residents, schools and the majority of Surbiton's councillors. The consultation was done, all that was needed was to accept the decision.
And what's with the Comet / Guardian headline, claiming that this an attempt to "delay" this scheme. It's nothing of the sort. The only reason to "call in" the decision is to scupper it. To overturn the democratic wishes of Surbiton town centre residents, and the Surbiton Neighbourhood committee itself. If the Tories supported this best-practice designed 20mph zone, all they had to do was accept the wishes of Surbiton town centre residents, schools and the majority of Surbiton's councillors. The consultation was done, all that was needed was to accept the decision. grace86
  • Score: 22

3:24pm Thu 4 Sep 14

RobertG2758 says...

We live in a 20 mph zone and nearly everyone ignores it, including local residents. They re totally pointless without enforcement, and I don't mean using it as a council cash cow. I mean police/pcso enforcement.
We live in a 20 mph zone and nearly everyone ignores it, including local residents. They re totally pointless without enforcement, and I don't mean using it as a council cash cow. I mean police/pcso enforcement. RobertG2758
  • Score: 18

4:04pm Thu 4 Sep 14

SurboTurbo says...

Robert,

it's a myth that police don't enforce 20mph zones - they do.
In May this year, Kingston police, with local residents' support , carried out a number of enforcement drives.

One of the enforcement drives in the Kingsdowne area was publicised in a "tweet" that you can view at the following link:

http://goo.gl/RPLmPF


Most importantly, 20mph zones are very much community led, and with increased police focus on community policing, police forces generally take a light touch approach to policing these zones.
In the main they are self-policing, but, as can be seen here in Kingston & Surbiton, the police do enforce when called upon by local residents.

Moving on, Surbiton town centre is as suitable location as one could find for a 20mph zone with its high volume of pedestrians and cyclists accessing the station alongside buses on a narrow high street, with narrow residential streets.
Robert, it's a myth that police don't enforce 20mph zones - they do. In May this year, Kingston police, with local residents' support , carried out a number of enforcement drives. One of the enforcement drives in the Kingsdowne area was publicised in a "tweet" that you can view at the following link: http://goo.gl/RPLmPF Most importantly, 20mph zones are very much community led, and with increased police focus on community policing, police forces generally take a light touch approach to policing these zones. In the main they are self-policing, but, as can be seen here in Kingston & Surbiton, the police do enforce when called upon by local residents. Moving on, Surbiton town centre is as suitable location as one could find for a 20mph zone with its high volume of pedestrians and cyclists accessing the station alongside buses on a narrow high street, with narrow residential streets. SurboTurbo
  • Score: 19

4:45pm Thu 4 Sep 14

helen59 says...

Unfortunately no one recognises the 20mph. they still speed through - its almost like a challenge to some of the drivers especially the ones that speed down my road.
Unfortunately no one recognises the 20mph. they still speed through - its almost like a challenge to some of the drivers especially the ones that speed down my road. helen59
  • Score: 15

4:47pm Thu 4 Sep 14

helen59 says...

and.................
............THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ONE POLICING THIS
and................. ............THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ONE POLICING THIS helen59
  • Score: 2

5:08pm Thu 4 Sep 14

SurboTurbo says...

Helen,

your reading skills are as fast and loose as Zac Goldsmith's driving.

Read the links:

http://goo.gl/RPLmPF


http://goo.gl/2OHQnT


.
Helen, your reading skills are as fast and loose as Zac Goldsmith's driving. Read the links: http://goo.gl/RPLmPF http://goo.gl/2OHQnT . SurboTurbo
  • Score: 14

6:43pm Thu 4 Sep 14

helen59 says...

SurboTurbo wrote:
Helen,

your reading skills are as fast and loose as Zac Goldsmith's driving.

Read the links:

http://goo.gl/RPLmPF



http://goo.gl/2OHQnT



.
who??111

I trust you are a boy racer then surboturbo!!!
[quote][p][bold]SurboTurbo[/bold] wrote: Helen, your reading skills are as fast and loose as Zac Goldsmith's driving. Read the links: http://goo.gl/RPLmPF http://goo.gl/2OHQnT .[/p][/quote]who??111 I trust you are a boy racer then surboturbo!!! helen59
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Razor123 says...

When they were doing one of their 'meet the local police' sessions in the river road area a while back, I asked the police about enforcement of the 20mph speed limits. I was told that it was a local bylaw and not enforceable by them. They added that they could possibly charge a speeding driver with dangerous driving, but not a speeding offence in itself.
When they were doing one of their 'meet the local police' sessions in the river road area a while back, I asked the police about enforcement of the 20mph speed limits. I was told that it was a local bylaw and not enforceable by them. They added that they could possibly charge a speeding driver with dangerous driving, but not a speeding offence in itself. Razor123
  • Score: 8

7:56pm Thu 4 Sep 14

ANakar says...

grace86 wrote:
The Tories have shown their reactionary backward looking colours here. The Luddite Tories have turned their backs on

1. the majority of residents in the consultation who wanted their streets to be 20mph.
2. all schools in the area who passionately supported this scheme to protect our children at the school gates.
3. The council's own qualified traffic engineers who designed the scheme.
4. The massively growing number of cyclists that use Surbiton station.
Wow, I see all the bullies have been out in force.

The whole pro campaign is a dreary list of failed answers:

34 responded to the consultation in favour - and not all of those were residents. Meanwhile thousands of road users quite happily and safely traversed Surbiton at 20-30mph, many probably blissfully unaware of the plot to label them dangerous criminals.

The headteacher support is lovely, and they will probably get their 20 limit (there's not much going against it). But the headteacher on Tuesday failed to make a single valid comment about how it would improve safety. She then had the audacity to claim counter-claims were based on dubious information. It was a shocking show of a lack of self-awareness. Glad she wasn't my headteacher at Grand Avenue.

These traffic engineers did not design, or indeed think through, the scheme in the slightest. There basically is no design to this scheme; it's just plain interference in people's lives. (I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse than their otherwise dreadful record of ruining the aesthetics and quality of roads round our borough). Some of their assertions regarding speed and safety were downright lies.

I do not believe decent cyclists should support this either. I cycle to work daily round here, and was in Surbiton just an hour ago. To work and back, cycling down the Villiers' would be much better if they were 30, as they look (and if Avenue was obstacle free, as it was briefly in July). This evening, following a nice ride down Portsmouth Road, I turned left into The Mall. Are you going to try and tell me that The Mall is better for cyclists than St Andrews Road? Rubbish. Coming home, no-one could pass down Victoria Road because I took a central lane position. No-one needed half a tin of paint and a load of signs uglifying the place to enforce that. Up St Marks Hill, I gave space up the hill where possible, otherwise it was tough. Then, a couple of looks behind rewarded me with a space to turn right at the lights. I chose Ewell Road over King Charles Road, because only one is like cycling the gauntlet.

So where in all this are the supposed cycling benefits from a 20 limit? How can you antagonise fellow road users and expect that to be an improvement?

As for enforcement, one morning on Kingsdowne Road has been highlighted. Wow, well done. Was this before or after the infamous cat was run over? We presently have self-enforcing 30 limits in Surbiton, as per all data provided. People are basically trustworthy (despite some of the comments on here making me wonder). The proposal to change every limit to be non-self-enforcing, label those perfectly safely using the road as dangerous criminals (that includes cyclists down those hills, and on some flats), and then express desire to enforce the oppression, is simply abhorrent.

What has happened to this place? The capital of suburbia should have people who are trusting, caring, considerate, responsible, and show responsibility for others. It should not be occupied by the rump of The Committee of Public Safety, oppressors, self-righteous, self-grandising bullies seeking control with no consideration for others. The dregs of society, as said before.

I think, hope, that the advocates for this scheme aer shouting and screaming because they have little support. I hope I still live in a nice area after all. And I hope the Tories intend to keep it that way. They'd be doing what they were voted in to do.
[quote][p][bold]grace86[/bold] wrote: The Tories have shown their reactionary backward looking colours here. The Luddite Tories have turned their backs on 1. the majority of residents in the consultation who wanted their streets to be 20mph. 2. all schools in the area who passionately supported this scheme to protect our children at the school gates. 3. The council's own qualified traffic engineers who designed the scheme. 4. The massively growing number of cyclists that use Surbiton station.[/p][/quote]Wow, I see all the bullies have been out in force. The whole pro campaign is a dreary list of failed answers: 34 responded to the consultation in favour - and not all of those were residents. Meanwhile thousands of road users quite happily and safely traversed Surbiton at 20-30mph, many probably blissfully unaware of the plot to label them dangerous criminals. The headteacher support is lovely, and they will probably get their 20 limit (there's not much going against it). But the headteacher on Tuesday failed to make a single valid comment about how it would improve safety. She then had the audacity to claim counter-claims were based on dubious information. It was a shocking show of a lack of self-awareness. Glad she wasn't my headteacher at Grand Avenue. These traffic engineers did not design, or indeed think through, the scheme in the slightest. There basically is no design to this scheme; it's just plain interference in people's lives. (I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse than their otherwise dreadful record of ruining the aesthetics and quality of roads round our borough). Some of their assertions regarding speed and safety were downright lies. I do not believe decent cyclists should support this either. I cycle to work daily round here, and was in Surbiton just an hour ago. To work and back, cycling down the Villiers' would be much better if they were 30, as they look (and if Avenue was obstacle free, as it was briefly in July). This evening, following a nice ride down Portsmouth Road, I turned left into The Mall. Are you going to try and tell me that The Mall is better for cyclists than St Andrews Road? Rubbish. Coming home, no-one could pass down Victoria Road because I took a central lane position. No-one needed half a tin of paint and a load of signs uglifying the place to enforce that. Up St Marks Hill, I gave space up the hill where possible, otherwise it was tough. Then, a couple of looks behind rewarded me with a space to turn right at the lights. I chose Ewell Road over King Charles Road, because only one is like cycling the gauntlet. So where in all this are the supposed cycling benefits from a 20 limit? How can you antagonise fellow road users and expect that to be an improvement? As for enforcement, one morning on Kingsdowne Road has been highlighted. Wow, well done. Was this before or after the infamous cat was run over? We presently have self-enforcing 30 limits in Surbiton, as per all data provided. People are basically trustworthy (despite some of the comments on here making me wonder). The proposal to change every limit to be non-self-enforcing, label those perfectly safely using the road as dangerous criminals (that includes cyclists down those hills, and on some flats), and then express desire to enforce the oppression, is simply abhorrent. What has happened to this place? The capital of suburbia should have people who are trusting, caring, considerate, responsible, and show responsibility for others. It should not be occupied by the rump of The Committee of Public Safety, oppressors, self-righteous, self-grandising bullies seeking control with no consideration for others. The dregs of society, as said before. I think, hope, that the advocates for this scheme aer shouting and screaming because they have little support. I hope I still live in a nice area after all. And I hope the Tories intend to keep it that way. They'd be doing what they were voted in to do. ANakar
  • Score: -13

8:03pm Thu 4 Sep 14

SurboTurbo says...

Razor123,

hopefully you too don't have reading skills are as fast and loose as Zac Goldsmith's driving skills either.

Copy the following link, paste it into your address bar, and press return.
It will show tweets from Kingston Police. The second tweer highlighs just one of the 20mph enforcement campaigns they made in Surbiton earlier this year.

http://goo.gl/RPLmPF



You mightn't get the Zac Goldsmith reference - he was found guilty of repeated speeding offences earlier this year, but the Comet/Guardian website has refused to publish the 6 month driving ban the judge handed down. The Comet say they were too busy to upload the story to the website.

Make of that what you will. Local readers who do want to know their local MP was up to will have to read the Daily Mail instead. See this link:

http://goo.gl/2OHQnT
Razor123, hopefully you too don't have reading skills are as fast and loose as Zac Goldsmith's driving skills either. Copy the following link, paste it into your address bar, and press return. It will show tweets from Kingston Police. The second tweer highlighs just one of the 20mph enforcement campaigns they made in Surbiton earlier this year. http://goo.gl/RPLmPF You mightn't get the Zac Goldsmith reference - he was found guilty of repeated speeding offences earlier this year, but the Comet/Guardian website has refused to publish the 6 month driving ban the judge handed down. The Comet say they were too busy to upload the story to the website. Make of that what you will. Local readers who do want to know their local MP was up to will have to read the Daily Mail instead. See this link: http://goo.gl/2OHQnT SurboTurbo
  • Score: 14

8:25pm Thu 4 Sep 14

SurboTurbo says...

ANakar,

the London Cycling Cycling Campaign is the largest cycling group in our city and, having looked at the research, they are unreservedly in favour on 20mph zones where there is mixed car, bike and pedestrian traffic in relatively large numbers. Surbiton town centre matches that criteria.

The LCC backing is on the simple grounds that, in specific locations, 20mph zones save lives.

They save lives, that's the important bit.
That's why the Head Teacher of Surbiton High stood up and gave a passionate speech in favour. She made clear that it was her duty to protect the safety of her students going to/from school. I wonder whether Nicky Morgan, an ex Surbiton High pupil and now Conservative minister supports the Head Teacher of her alma mater, or Kingston's Conservative councillors on this one?

You can read the LCC policy here:

http://goo.gl/MH4iZb


.
ANakar, the London Cycling Cycling Campaign is the largest cycling group in our city and, having looked at the research, they are unreservedly in favour on 20mph zones where there is mixed car, bike and pedestrian traffic in relatively large numbers. Surbiton town centre matches that criteria. The LCC backing is on the simple grounds that, in specific locations, 20mph zones save lives. They save lives, that's the important bit. That's why the Head Teacher of Surbiton High stood up and gave a passionate speech in favour. She made clear that it was her duty to protect the safety of her students going to/from school. I wonder whether Nicky Morgan, an ex Surbiton High pupil and now Conservative minister supports the Head Teacher of her alma mater, or Kingston's Conservative councillors on this one? You can read the LCC policy here: http://goo.gl/MH4iZb . SurboTurbo
  • Score: 14

8:59pm Thu 4 Sep 14

TraditionalValues says...

The Conservatives, as usual, are correct. Roads are for cars, not hippies on bikes. Nor pedestrians who want to wander willy-nilly.

It's a fundamental founding principle of Conservatism that those who receive a service are those who should pay for it. Cyclists pay no road tax, so why should they demand their "human rights" to use roads that we pay for. They have no right to complain if things are too dangerous for them.

If you have to cycle everywhere because you can't afford a car, then you shouldn't be living in London. Full stop.

More should be done to speed up traffic and allow more cars on our roads, not less. There are too many buses. As Margaret Thatcher said, “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”.

It is right that local Conservatives are reinstating the importance of the car. Good luck to them!
The Conservatives, as usual, are correct. Roads are for cars, not hippies on bikes. Nor pedestrians who want to wander willy-nilly. It's a fundamental founding principle of Conservatism that those who receive a service are those who should pay for it. Cyclists pay no road tax, so why should they demand their "human rights" to use roads that we pay for. They have no right to complain if things are too dangerous for them. If you have to cycle everywhere because you can't afford a car, then you shouldn't be living in London. Full stop. More should be done to speed up traffic and allow more cars on our roads, not less. There are too many buses. As Margaret Thatcher said, “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”. It is right that local Conservatives are reinstating the importance of the car. Good luck to them! TraditionalValues
  • Score: -17

9:59pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Razor123 says...

Apologies SurboTurbo.. it does appear that police policy is changing since I spoke to the local police which was over a year ago:
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/news
/10323354/Police-rea
dy-to-get-tough-on-2
0mph-limits.html
Apologies SurboTurbo.. it does appear that police policy is changing since I spoke to the local police which was over a year ago: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /10323354/Police-rea dy-to-get-tough-on-2 0mph-limits.html Razor123
  • Score: 9

12:58am Fri 5 Sep 14

sumbee says...

I live on one of the roads covered by the proposal. I'm a driver, pedestrian and parent of a young child. I would welcome the introduction of the 20 mph speed limits. All the roads covered by the proposals are located on busy routes to / from the local schools and in the case of Balaclava Road (which I understand was added by requests from the locals) our only playground.

I can confirm that cyclist regularly use the pavements to avoid traffic and with both car and pedestrian traffic set to increase on these community streets due to the local schools expanding, I think these changes on these roads (which are in the vacinity of the schools) makes sense.

As a resident of one of these streets, I dont really care if the limits are legally enforceable, as simular schemes have shown to reduce traffic speed in other areas, surely any scheme which reminds us drivers to take greater care on our community roads should be welcomed.

After reading the article I listened to the audio from Tuesday's neighbourhood meeting, the gentleman speaking against the proposal doesnt live on these roads but on Alexandra Drive in Berryland and the councillor trying to block this proposal is also from another ward. I genuinely do not see what Cllr Hudson hopes to achieve by blocking the proposal, it makes no sense. It would seem the funds are coming from TFL so it can't be a budget concern.
I live on one of the roads covered by the proposal. I'm a driver, pedestrian and parent of a young child. I would welcome the introduction of the 20 mph speed limits. All the roads covered by the proposals are located on busy routes to / from the local schools and in the case of Balaclava Road (which I understand was added by requests from the locals) our only playground. I can confirm that cyclist regularly use the pavements to avoid traffic and with both car and pedestrian traffic set to increase on these community streets due to the local schools expanding, I think these changes on these roads (which are in the vacinity of the schools) makes sense. As a resident of one of these streets, I dont really care if the limits are legally enforceable, as simular schemes have shown to reduce traffic speed in other areas, surely any scheme which reminds us drivers to take greater care on our community roads should be welcomed. After reading the article I listened to the audio from Tuesday's neighbourhood meeting, the gentleman speaking against the proposal doesnt live on these roads but on Alexandra Drive in Berryland and the councillor trying to block this proposal is also from another ward. I genuinely do not see what Cllr Hudson hopes to achieve by blocking the proposal, it makes no sense. It would seem the funds are coming from TFL so it can't be a budget concern. sumbee
  • Score: 24

9:27am Fri 5 Sep 14

Bigdai100 says...

TraditionalValues wrote:
The Conservatives, as usual, are correct. Roads are for cars, not hippies on bikes. Nor pedestrians who want to wander willy-nilly.

It's a fundamental founding principle of Conservatism that those who receive a service are those who should pay for it. Cyclists pay no road tax, so why should they demand their "human rights" to use roads that we pay for. They have no right to complain if things are too dangerous for them.

If you have to cycle everywhere because you can't afford a car, then you shouldn't be living in London. Full stop.

More should be done to speed up traffic and allow more cars on our roads, not less. There are too many buses. As Margaret Thatcher said, “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”.

It is right that local Conservatives are reinstating the importance of the car. Good luck to them!
I pay income tax which is used to build roads and I demand what I pay for is made safe for all those entitled to use it not one specific minority group, the car driver. No one has paid road tax since 1937, you currently pay an emission tax for your vehicle, since my bicycle is zero emission, my vehicle tax is zero.
As for why I ride a bike in London, I can travel across town or commute into the centre of town faster by bike than bus, car or train.
[quote][p][bold]TraditionalValues[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives, as usual, are correct. Roads are for cars, not hippies on bikes. Nor pedestrians who want to wander willy-nilly. It's a fundamental founding principle of Conservatism that those who receive a service are those who should pay for it. Cyclists pay no road tax, so why should they demand their "human rights" to use roads that we pay for. They have no right to complain if things are too dangerous for them. If you have to cycle everywhere because you can't afford a car, then you shouldn't be living in London. Full stop. More should be done to speed up traffic and allow more cars on our roads, not less. There are too many buses. As Margaret Thatcher said, “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”. It is right that local Conservatives are reinstating the importance of the car. Good luck to them![/p][/quote]I pay income tax which is used to build roads and I demand what I pay for is made safe for all those entitled to use it not one specific minority group, the car driver. No one has paid road tax since 1937, you currently pay an emission tax for your vehicle, since my bicycle is zero emission, my vehicle tax is zero. As for why I ride a bike in London, I can travel across town or commute into the centre of town faster by bike than bus, car or train. Bigdai100
  • Score: 21

12:51pm Fri 5 Sep 14

TraditionalValues says...

sumbee,

As a motorist, it's of no concern what residents on these Surbiton town centre streets think. A motorist's wish is to get from A to B as quickly as possible without having to put up with cyclists or children in the road,

Your views on the road outside your house are of no concern. You don't pay for the road, motorists do. If you have safety concerns, supervise your children. If you can't control them, move elsewhere. Or don't have them in the first place.

I am proud that every single Conservative councillor at the meeting rejected this nanny state nonsense. Surbiton may well have voted Lib Dem at the last elections, but Surbiton residents will have to face facts that Kingston is now a Conservative Council, and an unashamedly pro-motorist one. We make no apology for that.
sumbee, As a motorist, it's of no concern what residents on these Surbiton town centre streets think. A motorist's wish is to get from A to B as quickly as possible without having to put up with cyclists or children in the road, Your views on the road outside your house are of no concern. You don't pay for the road, motorists do. If you have safety concerns, supervise your children. If you can't control them, move elsewhere. Or don't have them in the first place. I am proud that every single Conservative councillor at the meeting rejected this nanny state nonsense. Surbiton may well have voted Lib Dem at the last elections, but Surbiton residents will have to face facts that Kingston is now a Conservative Council, and an unashamedly pro-motorist one. We make no apology for that. TraditionalValues
  • Score: -23

1:05pm Fri 5 Sep 14

TraditionalValues says...

BigDai,

you're missing the pretty obvious point. Motorists pay excise duty and cyclists don't. If cyclists can't stand the heat of free-flowing traffic, then it's time they got out of the fire.

It's no good being a moaning minnie about any misguided idea that Kingston Conservatives were anything other than pro-motorist. That's why we won the election.

Just before election time, there was coverage of Conservatives resisting attempts to impose 20mph speed limits in Park Road, North Kingston. Residents of that street were trying to get lower speeds after a series of accidents. Conservative Councillor Geoff Austin successfully kicked their moaning into touch, highlighting that they were jumping on the ambulance band wagon.

The Conservative's view was published in the local press at the time. See this link if you don't believe me.

http://ow.ly/B7I5W

It's hardly our fault if you got the wrong end of the stick.
BigDai, you're missing the pretty obvious point. Motorists pay excise duty and cyclists don't. If cyclists can't stand the heat of free-flowing traffic, then it's time they got out of the fire. It's no good being a moaning minnie about any misguided idea that Kingston Conservatives were anything other than pro-motorist. That's why we won the election. Just before election time, there was coverage of Conservatives resisting attempts to impose 20mph speed limits in Park Road, North Kingston. Residents of that street were trying to get lower speeds after a series of accidents. Conservative Councillor Geoff Austin successfully kicked their moaning into touch, highlighting that they were jumping on the ambulance band wagon. The Conservative's view was published in the local press at the time. See this link if you don't believe me. http://ow.ly/B7I5W It's hardly our fault if you got the wrong end of the stick. TraditionalValues
  • Score: -15

1:06pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Bigdai100 says...

TraditionalValues wrote:
sumbee,

As a motorist, it's of no concern what residents on these Surbiton town centre streets think. A motorist's wish is to get from A to B as quickly as possible without having to put up with cyclists or children in the road,

Your views on the road outside your house are of no concern. You don't pay for the road, motorists do. If you have safety concerns, supervise your children. If you can't control them, move elsewhere. Or don't have them in the first place.

I am proud that every single Conservative councillor at the meeting rejected this nanny state nonsense. Surbiton may well have voted Lib Dem at the last elections, but Surbiton residents will have to face facts that Kingston is now a Conservative Council, and an unashamedly pro-motorist one. We make no apology for that.
Its Conservative attitudes like this that have driven me away from the party after a very long term relationship
[quote][p][bold]TraditionalValues[/bold] wrote: sumbee, As a motorist, it's of no concern what residents on these Surbiton town centre streets think. A motorist's wish is to get from A to B as quickly as possible without having to put up with cyclists or children in the road, Your views on the road outside your house are of no concern. You don't pay for the road, motorists do. If you have safety concerns, supervise your children. If you can't control them, move elsewhere. Or don't have them in the first place. I am proud that every single Conservative councillor at the meeting rejected this nanny state nonsense. Surbiton may well have voted Lib Dem at the last elections, but Surbiton residents will have to face facts that Kingston is now a Conservative Council, and an unashamedly pro-motorist one. We make no apology for that.[/p][/quote]Its Conservative attitudes like this that have driven me away from the party after a very long term relationship Bigdai100
  • Score: 19

3:31pm Fri 5 Sep 14

sumbee says...

TraditionalValues, firstly as a motorist I also pay "vehicle duty" (not road tax as it was abolished In 1937) or car tax (as it's also referred to, which is a tax on car ownership not on road usage) and use the roads as a motorist (I'm not a cyclist). As a motorist I welcome the introduction of 20mph speed limits on my local streets. I do not see any harm in their introduction and I imagine the change in speed limits will have little effect on my overall journey time. It is of little inconvenience to arrive at my destination a few seconds later.

I've done some quick research and car tax is a taxation on car ownership and average engine emissions. It is not in any way a toll for road usage. The revenue raised from CAR TAX is paid directly to the exchequer and isn't in ring fenced for road maintenance or construction, in the same way the duty on smoking doesn't go to the NHS to meet the health costs associated with its use. Paying this form of tax doesn't give a motorist (myself included) priority usage of the roads. Now correct me if I'm wrong but they are all public highways, and everyone has the same right to use these highways. Therefore a motorist has no greater right to use this public right of way than a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, or horse rider. Nor does it allow you to have a greater say in the roads governing, that I believe is a local issue, for neighbourhood councillors and residents to decide.

You make much of your journey time being lengthened if these proposals go ahead, but if you study the map in detail most of these roads will predominately be used by local residents and school users. Not Jeremy Clarke "wanna bes" raging at being asked to reduce their speed for a approximately 1/4 mile.

I'll ignore your comments about having to put up with children in the street, but will say that we all need to cross the road. So perhaps if you are so against 20 mph speed limits on the roads surrounding schools, then perhaps we should install a zebra crossing on each street instead to ensure we can cross safely instead (that was a joke by the way).

I could drone on about the whole localism concept but I actually can't be bothered, and feel any further debate with you would be a waste of energy. At the last local electron I spread my votes, if the new council are that anti Surbiton I won't be doing it again. Your comments seem to point to some hidden agenda, that Surbiton is being punished for not turning tory (sour grapes). Well we are a family neighbourhood, not a bunch of hippies as you suggest, which champion family values like slowing down for children, the politics of this should be irrelevant. Play political football somewhere else, this is about enhancing a family community.
TraditionalValues, firstly as a motorist I also pay "vehicle duty" (not road tax as it was abolished In 1937) or car tax (as it's also referred to, which is a tax on car ownership not on road usage) and use the roads as a motorist (I'm not a cyclist). As a motorist I welcome the introduction of 20mph speed limits on my local streets. I do not see any harm in their introduction and I imagine the change in speed limits will have little effect on my overall journey time. It is of little inconvenience to arrive at my destination a few seconds later. I've done some quick research and car tax is a taxation on car ownership and average engine emissions. It is not in any way a toll for road usage. The revenue raised from CAR TAX is paid directly to the exchequer and isn't in ring fenced for road maintenance or construction, in the same way the duty on smoking doesn't go to the NHS to meet the health costs associated with its use. Paying this form of tax doesn't give a motorist (myself included) priority usage of the roads. Now correct me if I'm wrong but they are all public highways, and everyone has the same right to use these highways. Therefore a motorist has no greater right to use this public right of way than a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, or horse rider. Nor does it allow you to have a greater say in the roads governing, that I believe is a local issue, for neighbourhood councillors and residents to decide. You make much of your journey time being lengthened if these proposals go ahead, but if you study the map in detail most of these roads will predominately be used by local residents and school users. Not Jeremy Clarke "wanna bes" raging at being asked to reduce their speed for a approximately 1/4 mile. I'll ignore your comments about having to put up with children in the street, but will say that we all need to cross the road. So perhaps if you are so against 20 mph speed limits on the roads surrounding schools, then perhaps we should install a zebra crossing on each street instead to ensure we can cross safely instead (that was a joke by the way). I could drone on about the whole localism concept but I actually can't be bothered, and feel any further debate with you would be a waste of energy. At the last local electron I spread my votes, if the new council are that anti Surbiton I won't be doing it again. Your comments seem to point to some hidden agenda, that Surbiton is being punished for not turning tory (sour grapes). Well we are a family neighbourhood, not a bunch of hippies as you suggest, which champion family values like slowing down for children, the politics of this should be irrelevant. Play political football somewhere else, this is about enhancing a family community. sumbee
  • Score: 17

4:25pm Fri 5 Sep 14

DB says...

TraditionalValues wrote:
The Conservatives, as usual, are correct. Roads are for cars, not hippies on bikes. Nor pedestrians who want to wander willy-nilly.

It's a fundamental founding principle of Conservatism that those who receive a service are those who should pay for it. Cyclists pay no road tax, so why should they demand their "human rights" to use roads that we pay for. They have no right to complain if things are too dangerous for them.

If you have to cycle everywhere because you can't afford a car, then you shouldn't be living in London. Full stop.

More should be done to speed up traffic and allow more cars on our roads, not less. There are too many buses. As Margaret Thatcher said, “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”.

It is right that local Conservatives are reinstating the importance of the car. Good luck to them!
Oh dear.

I hope that the Conservative councillors would be totally embarrassed by this response as it is exactly this type of attitude that is making them unattractive to large sections of the electorate.

Whilst I agree that the roads are there for the convenience of the motorists who pay for them, they are also built through communities that should have at least some say in how they are run.

As a pedestrian (primarily), I find the current 20mph limit on Maple Road a real pain. It is impossible to cross the road sometimes because some of the cars are moving at 18-20 mph whilst others are coming at you at 45mph. It is hard to judge this speed and not really worth using a pedestrian crossing as they are routinely ignored.

If it were up to me, I'd leave the limit at 30mph, but enforce it properly and change the law so that people speeding past schools at 3.30pm are properly hammered rather than just getting 3 points.

I am not sure what to think about the suggestion that people who can't afford a car should not be living in London. In central London, car ownership is often more of an inconvenience than anything else, and even out here in the suburbs, a lot of people will spend more time on trains and walking than they will in their cars.

Surely an old school right wing bigot such as yourself would prefer to tax as many drivers as possible off the road to ease your own journeys?
[quote][p][bold]TraditionalValues[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives, as usual, are correct. Roads are for cars, not hippies on bikes. Nor pedestrians who want to wander willy-nilly. It's a fundamental founding principle of Conservatism that those who receive a service are those who should pay for it. Cyclists pay no road tax, so why should they demand their "human rights" to use roads that we pay for. They have no right to complain if things are too dangerous for them. If you have to cycle everywhere because you can't afford a car, then you shouldn't be living in London. Full stop. More should be done to speed up traffic and allow more cars on our roads, not less. There are too many buses. As Margaret Thatcher said, “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”. It is right that local Conservatives are reinstating the importance of the car. Good luck to them![/p][/quote]Oh dear. I hope that the Conservative councillors would be totally embarrassed by this response as it is exactly this type of attitude that is making them unattractive to large sections of the electorate. Whilst I agree that the roads are there for the convenience of the motorists who pay for them, they are also built through communities that should have at least some say in how they are run. As a pedestrian (primarily), I find the current 20mph limit on Maple Road a real pain. It is impossible to cross the road sometimes because some of the cars are moving at 18-20 mph whilst others are coming at you at 45mph. It is hard to judge this speed and not really worth using a pedestrian crossing as they are routinely ignored. If it were up to me, I'd leave the limit at 30mph, but enforce it properly and change the law so that people speeding past schools at 3.30pm are properly hammered rather than just getting 3 points. I am not sure what to think about the suggestion that people who can't afford a car should not be living in London. In central London, car ownership is often more of an inconvenience than anything else, and even out here in the suburbs, a lot of people will spend more time on trains and walking than they will in their cars. Surely an old school right wing bigot such as yourself would prefer to tax as many drivers as possible off the road to ease your own journeys? DB
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree