On May 20, 11:48 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL
have painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer
park there at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have
to get up in the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it. If I was
running a delvery company I'd just buy all my trucks and vans in
france or holland and run them over here on foreign plates parking
when and where I pleased.

B2003

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Boltar wrote:

On May 20, 11:48 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

Hmm. The fines would have to be pretty huge to make a difference to the
price, once they'd been averaged out over all deliveries.

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL have
painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer park there
at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have to get up in
the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it.

Tough ****. That road's needed for public transport - the shopkeeper
doesn't get to hold up hundreds of people using it just so he can take a
delivery.

tom

--
there is never a wrong time to have your bullets passing further into
someone's face -- D

On May 20, 12:43 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Boltar wrote:
On May 20, 11:48 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

Hmm. The fines would have to be pretty huge to make a difference to the
price, once they'd been averaged out over all deliveries.

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL have
painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer park there
at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have to get up in
the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it.

Tough ****. That road's needed for public transport - the shopkeeper

Newsflash - Roads are needed for many things, public transport is just
one amongst them.

B2003

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:14:50AM -0700, Boltar wrote:

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL
have painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer
park there at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have
to get up in the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it.

Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Do you really think that Fortnum and Mason's desire (they were founded
quite a few decades ago) to have delivery lorries stop whenever they
damned well feel like is more important than having a bus lane outside
the shop?

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Deck of Cards: $1.29.
"101 Solitaire Variations" book: $6.59.
Cheap replacement for the one thing Windows is good at: priceless
-- Shane Lazarus

On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?


Do you really think that Fortnum and Mason's desire (they were founded
quite a few decades ago) to have delivery lorries stop whenever they
damned well feel like is more important than having a bus lane outside
the shop?

Frankly yes. If its a street with shops that street only exists
because of those shops. And why pick on a posh shop like Fortnums? Why
not use an example of a small shop owner who's already finding it hard
to make ends meet and now can't have deliveries at any sane time of
day just so a bus can save 30 seconds and get stuck in a queue 200
metres further down the road anyway?

B2003

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.
Perhaps Boris will make some changes.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On May 21, 8:33 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Boltar wrote:

On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

B2003

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 8:33 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Boltar wrote:
[we should have bus lanes if they are a net benifit]
Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

That's why I said "in a rather roundabout way". It's called
representative democracy.

To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:54:36 +0100, Mike Bristow wrote:

[we should have bus lanes if they are a net benifit]
Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

That's why I said "in a rather roundabout way". It's called
representative democracy.

To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

Please can I move to your fantasy world where I get to vote for one
candidate on issue A, another on issue B, a third on issue C...?

On May 22, 4:54 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

I never said their should be fewer , but I think people on live or
have businesses on the road should have grandfather rights to be able
to park vehicles on it temporarily to unload or do deliveries. Just
painting a bus lane then telling the shopkeepers to eff off and unload
their vans elsewhere is just unhelpful and petty minded beaurocracy.

B2003