Forum Topic

Fact checking Lambert’s latest ramblings

Incredible how those in positions of power and influences can say something that’s patently not true. Lambert’s latest ‘amusing update’ contains his thoughts on car ownership and parking in London. He said this:‘By the way, before the tabloid picks this up and says ’Lambert trying to ban cars’ I’m not and none of this is nobody’s policy, just me musing.’Well, it is somebody’s policy, that of the London Cycling Campaign of which he and other Labour councillors are members. Lambert’s musings echo the speech given to the Labour conference last year by the LCC chief executive Ashok Sinha, who said:“We need to free people from the burden and tyranny of owning tons of metal that sits unused 90 percent of the time,”I’m not sure that most car owners see it as a tyranny and a burden, although they might view the policies of Lambert and his colleagues as exactly that.Anyone who looks into the strategies and aims of the LCC will recognise its direct influence on policies pursued by Hounslow, Ealing and other councils in London. Low traffic neighbourhoods, cycle lanes, reducing parking spaces, etc, are all part of the plan. Make owning a car as expensive and inconvenient as possible to simply force people off the road.They’d have you believe that car owners are singlehandedly responsible for all the problems in London, yet car ownership in the capital has actually declined in the last 20 years, despite a massive increase in population. London is unique in that in the UK.Congestion is caused by blocking roads, whether that’s due to roadworks, an accident or lame-brained traffic management policies that funnel all vehicles onto fewer roads. Yes, there are peaks where volumes are higher but most of the time most roads are pretty quiet.Inevitably Lambert will brand me a car lobbyist (which I’m not) and a Tory (which I certainly am not). I simply think that people should be able to make their own choices, not be dictated to by a self-interested minority.Lambert advocates car clubs, but doesn’t even consider that vehicle ownership is often a key to economic activity for many. Does he think those ubiquitous Ubers are anything other than privately owned vehicles? Like most utopians he thinks most of us are sitting at home deciding which leisure activity to pursue next. Simple minded, no?Ironically Lambert has a nice shiny new car and presumably a nice secure private parking space in Brentford. He doesn’t ‘need’ a car, so why does he have one? Surely he and others should practice what they preach?!

Simon Hayes ● 324d27 Comments

So you get penalised for using a car and now penalised if you don't use your car.Car hit scheme cannot work as envisaged. Imaging if one street of say, 50 homes gets rid of all their cars? Yet at some time over a week someone will need to use their car or a car.It might be to go to work, or make a visit, or go to an event or attend a family member, go shopping, collect or drop off someone, move goods or work equipment - almost anything.But what happens when say just 20 of those residents all need a vehicle at the same time and for different purposes?I regularly use a Car Club van. It has now gone App only and is a nightmare to book.  I have to book 2 to 3 weeks ahead. Last year it was just 4 to 5 days.It's now so far away for an available vehicle that I have to drive to the location or get someone else to come along to bring the car back home.It's no longer a practicable alternative because the demand exceeds the supply.So what happens when the demand exceeds the supply and you are not allowed to own your own vehicle that you can use when one needs it in whatever and whenever one needs it?There will end up being as many Car club cars and vans as there are private vehicles.The problem that Guy mentions is not too many cars ( there are far less per 1000 in Greater London than in 1979)  It is overdensification developments cramming in 1000s of people and containing their range of mobility - thus limiting their means of a living.Happily waving through huge population increase in the full knowledge that there is no infrastructure to support anything other than a glossy brochure image of idealism.No parking is factored in to developments and even Bicycles are limited.So the solution? Shaft the existing residents. Drag them down to the restrictive lives of those crammed into boxes.Cllr. Dunns views are typical of an intellectual or scientific mind that cannot relate to any other way of daily life other than her own. Apps Deliveroo and sipping coffee. A blinkered lifestyle.The reality is people are very different, work differently and are not AI clones just yet. Although there are no plenty blinded by technology who are pretty much assimilated by their world of device led existence.

Raymond Havelock ● 323d

Don't think he is necessarily being hypocritical. There is nothing contradictory of having a love of cars but believing it would be better for us all to use them less often. Very spiteful by the way to bring his health issues into the discussion.It is the original post to this thread which perhaps needs fact checking as it attributes opinions to Cllr Lambert which, to the best of my knowledge, he has never expressed. He may wish to clarify but also he may choose not to participate in this rather toxic thread. Just because some members of the LCC have quite extreme views doesn't mean that lots of its other associates have no wider agenda than to encourage more cycling.The border between justifiable opinions and dangerous dogma seems to me to have been cross when politicians start to believe that creating inconvenience for road traffic is a feature not a bug in a transport policy. This is based on the fairly deluded view that traffic magically evaporates if you create congestion. Time and time again we see how in fact it is mainly displaced rather than disappearing.As far as I am aware from reading his weekly missives, Cllr Lambert does not subscribe to this point of view. However, Cllr Dunne does believe that causing inconvenience to motorists is a good thing. At this stage the translation of this policy into dogma has only really happened in the Chiswick area. The conviction that generated traffic is good rather than bad removes the requirement to rigorously model road schemes which could mean that lots more road closures will take place in the borough if this approach starts to be uniformly implemented.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 323d