Westminster Council to charge for bike spaces

In uk.rec.motorcycles, The Older Gentleman belched forth and ejected the
following:

Damn, Ginged by TOG and Timo.

 

I agree, but I personally would probably tend to use one particular
bike for that sort of journey.

If the city commuter is off the road or it's a sunny day and one just
fancies taking a fun toy then the extra charge might be bloody
irritating but would not amount to much in the greater scheme of
things.

 

"Everyone" doesn't know anything of the sort. Or maybe I'm just the
exception that proves the rule.

What Suzi Jeeps do have though is the worst ride quality of anything
this side of a farm cart, including old Land Rovers.

 

Right, I need to buy another car as I can't have you outclass me .
Only 2-and-a-bit although the "bit" should turn into three in about a
month's time.

Then again, there are seven bikes cluttering up the garage[1].

[1] Don't dare ask if there are any running or MOT'd ones in there, OK?

 

<waves>

Three, here. Plus the Tranny.

 

<wiggles pinky>

 

I hired one in Corfu, summer before last.

Utterly atrocious. And being a cheapie model, it didn't even have PAS
(or else it was borked).

A Jimny, it was called. Appalling steering, no suspension to speak of,
no performance (55 flat out was about your lot unless you wanted to be
deafened), poor brakes, a soft top that was a kind of fabric origami
puzzle (we returned the thing to the hire company with the soft top
stuffed behind the front seats in the end)....

Awful, awful car. Did go up steep bad roads, though. And you see them in
London. Why?

 

Surely the VFR is OK?

 

Why should they?[/QUOTE]

I'd have thought that obvious - to raise more money from non-residents
so they can keep their local taxation lower and thereby remain in
power longer.

So, I ask again, why shouldn't they?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

I'd have thought it was even more obvious that parking spaces take
land that costs money, plus providing something secure to lock bikes
to costs money, therefore the costs should be recouped from the users.

 

I'd have thought that obvious - to raise more money from non-residents
so they can keep their local taxation lower and thereby remain in
power longer.

So, I ask again, why shouldn't they?[/QUOTE]

That's fine. I just thought there might have been some sort of logical,
moral and public-spirited reason why they should.

 

That's fine. I just thought there might have been some sort of logical,
moral and public-spirited reason why they should.[/QUOTE]

There may be other justifications, but I think my suggestion fits all
three of these criteria.

So will you please either detract or justify your "fucking wankers"
statement? I really don't see what they've done to deserve this.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Indeed, though that is hardly a case for the prosecution! I'm not
particularly interested in cars. The Capucino is hers, obviously, the
Jeep is a cheap runaround bought as it was the right money at the right
time as the Capucino is off the road and the Cooper is the everyday
London runaround. Bit more interesting than a Focus or some Honda.
<shrugs>

 

There may be other justifications, but I think my suggestion fits all
three of these criteria.

So will you please either detract or justify your "fucking wankers"
statement? I really don't see what they've done to deserve this.[/QUOTE]

Because they won't keep their local taxation down.

Because it goes against their congestion charge policy, in that it
chases non-congesting vehicles off the streets

Because it penalises residents as well (how many people in the Borough
have a garage or off-streett parking for their bikes)

Because they shouldn't remain in power if they're bastards.

 

Yeah, that's the newer version. Mine's truly awful, but I needed a car
in a hurry and my tame mechanic had this available for pennies. It's
rubbish, but it's cheap, reliable rubbish.

 

Ben wrote

Typical modernist short term non thinking. Profit in the form of lower
taxes is what they get after the costs are recouped from the non
resident users who so thoughtfully come to use the facility.

 

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:34:07 +0000,

Of course they will. More income from other sources inevitably means
less pressure to generate more from local taxation.

Rubbish. Can you seriously imagine concluding that as a result of,
say, a couple of quid a day to park your bike you'll just say fuckit
and come in the car paying a lot more for parking as well as the
congestion charge? I can't.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about politicians here.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Like the CG? That hasn't happened yet either. They tried charging on
the M6 toll road and what happened? It's only used by tourists and the
mildly curious.

 

Ah, but we haven't got to cough up for the Limpicks, have we?

 

Yeah, I think you're right[1].

There's a 90-ish degree right hander with a bus stop just after the
bend. The noise is at its worst when they don't need to stop at the
bus-stop (they can probably see it mid-corner) and then accelerate out
of the bend.

[1] PC right about public transport in London? Who'd've thought it, eh?