Hmm,

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument to
pedestrianise, or at least get rid of all parking on, lots of roads in
central London.

tom

--
I am listening to Girls aloud and drinking black tower...i think that
tells you everything you need to know -- ?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:58:38 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument to
pedestrianise, or at least get rid of all parking on, lots of roads in
central London.

Doubt it, just as the Tube bombings were not used as an excuse to
install airline style security in Tube stations, as it was just
impractical.

Nobody parks on-street in central London unless they have to due to
the excessive cost.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Neil Williams wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:58:38 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument
to pedestrianise, or at least get rid of all parking on, lots of roads
in central London.

Doubt it, just as the Tube bombings were not used as an excuse to
install airline style security in Tube stations, as it was just
impractical.

Nobody parks on-street in central London unless they have to due to the
excessive cost.

That still seems to be quite a lot of people! Charlotte St, for example,
routinely has cars parked all down it.

tom

--
I am listening to Girls aloud and drinking black tower...i think that
tells you everything you need to know -- ?

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:58:38 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an
argument to pedestrianise, or at least get rid of all parking on,
lots of roads in central London.

Doubt it, just as the Tube bombings were not used as an excuse to
install airline style security in Tube stations, as it was just
impractical.

Nobody parks on-street in central London unless they have to due to
the excessive cost.

You mean you don't, because it has been priced up to the point where the
number of people who can afford it is as low as the amount of available
space.

At night it's free, and residents parking bays are always nearly full.

Tom Anderson wrote:
Hmm,

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument
to pedestrianise, or at least get rid of all parking on, lots of roads
in central London.

tom


One of the reasons why they keep looking at pedestrianising Parliament
Sq is that it'll protect the HOP better from car bombs.

But then, one of the reasons why they say they can't pedestrianise the
Square is because they say too many people will be able to loiter in the
area and that's also a security risk...

On Jun 30, 11:58 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
Hmm,

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument to
pedestrianise,

That'd be nice, get rid of the menace of the buses.

or at least get rid of all parking on, lots of roads in
central London.

If you think that would stop someone causing an explosion in London,
you'd be crazy. Drive lorry up, drive motorcylce up, jump out of lorry
onto back of bike, leave lorry in trafalger square, 30 seconds later
police turn up and bomb goes off. Bike gets away, helmet means no
cctv.

tom

--
I am listening to Girls aloud and drinking black tower...i think that
tells you everything you need to know -- ?

On Jun 30, 9:21 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:36:19 -0700, Paul Weaver
wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:58 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
Hmm,

I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument to
pedestrianise,

That'd be nice, get rid of the menace of the buses.

So what are people supposed to do who can't afford to buy and run a
car and don't like the tube Paul ? .

That don't like the tube? Nobody in their right mind uses a bus for a
car replacement.

Perhaps these people should use their legs, or get a bike.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:40:57 -0700, Paul Weaver
wrote:

That don't like the tube? Nobody in their right mind uses a bus for a
car replacement.

In London many people do. If you know the network the buses are a far
more comfortable and practical way of getting around central London
then the Tube is, especially in the peaks.

Perhaps these people should use their legs, or get a bike.

Would bikes not also be banned if pedestrianisation was introduced,
surely?

(My view is that it won't happen at all)

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

That don't like the tube? Nobody in their right mind uses a bus for a
car replacement.

..

Even if you ignore the cost differential (considerable even without
the C charge) bus could potentially be quicker than a car on many
routes because of the buslanes, plus the time taken to park in the
centre. If you are lucky enough to have a bus stop outside your door,
and another right by your destination it could even beat the tube.

Tom Anderson wrote:
I wonder if this carbomb business will end up being used as an argument
to pedestrianise, or at least get rid of all parking on, lots of roads
in central London.

They'll probably use it as an excuse to perpetuate the pointless ban
on parking bicycles anywhere near Parliament.

[What few bike bombs there have been have been in bags attached to the
bikes, not hidden in the frame. Much bigger bombs can be carried in cars.]

Colin McKenzie