Cycling deaths in London

ketsbaia

Cannot, apparently, be discussed in the London Assembly. Well, they could be, if Tory AMs hadn't walked out of the Assembly, thereby making it inquorate.

What a lovely bunch.

veronese68

This sort of thing needs to be shouted from the rooftops. The press should report that this has happened prominently to shame them publicly. Unfortunately it won't happen because they view cyclists as a scourge on the earth as bad as pdf files and immigrants.

ketsbaia

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

bails87

ketsbaia wrote:

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

Tories? Surely not. They're known as 'the nice party' for a reason.

ketsbaia

I'm waiting for one of their many sympathisers to come along and try to justify it.

*drums fingers*

*counts fatalities*

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

Tories? Surely not. They're known as 'the nice party' for a reason.

Don't think even the Tories are pro-premature-death-of-cyclists though.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

Tories? Surely not. They're known as 'the nice party' for a reason.

Don't think even the Tories are pro-premature-death-of-cyclists though.

So you're a sympathizer now too?!

They're vankers though...

ketsbaia

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

Tories? Surely not. They're known as 'the nice party' for a reason.

Don't think even the Tories are pro-premature-death-of-cyclists though.

The London Assembly members (and I use this term in the widest sense) appear to be.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

Tories? Surely not. They're known as 'the nice party' for a reason.

Don't think even the Tories are pro-premature-death-of-cyclists though.

So you're a sympathizer now too?!

They're vankers though...

Didn't they have some vaguely reasonable motive for the walkout?

I can't remember to be honest.

bails87

No, they're wnakers and they want you to DIE!

Also, I heard Boris Johnson eats kittens. Throws them in a pan of boiling water. 'Land-lobsters', he calls them.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

No, they're wnakers and they want you to DIE!

Also, I heard Boris Johnson eats kittens. Throws them in a pan of boiling water. 'Land-lobsters', he calls them.

I heard Cameron's bike helmet was dipped into a vat of child tears before it was sold to him. A specific request apparently.

ketsbaia

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

It's not the first time they've done it, either. Wnakers.

Tories? Surely not. They're known as 'the nice party' for a reason.

Don't think even the Tories are pro-premature-death-of-cyclists though.

So you're a sympathizer now too?!

They're vankers though...

Didn't they have some vaguely reasonable motive for the walkout?

Yes. They don't give a sh1t.

CiB

ketsbaia wrote:

I'm waiting for one of their many sympathisers to come along and try to justify it.

*drums fingers*

*counts fatalities*

It's Tory policy to encourage more deaths to reduce NHS dependency, pension costs, welfare payments etc and fits in with their general dislike of Johny Foreigner etc. I can only support them in their quest to reverse population growth.

ketsbaia

CiB wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

I'm waiting for one of their many sympathisers to come along and try to justify it.

*drums fingers*

*counts fatalities*

It's Tory policy to encourage more deaths to reduce NHS dependency, pension costs, welfare payments etc and fits in with their general dislike of Johny Foreigner etc. I can only support them in their quest to reverse population growth.

I admire your honesty.

bails87

They should just make every woman wear an Eric Pickles mask*. No more babies then.


*Masks should also be worn on the backs of heads....

CiB

ketsbaia wrote:

CiB wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

I'm waiting for one of their many sympathisers to come along and try to justify it.

*drums fingers*

*counts fatalities*

It's Tory policy to encourage more deaths to reduce NHS dependency, pension costs, welfare payments etc and fits in with their general dislike of Johny Foreigner etc. I can only support them in their quest to reverse population growth.

I admire your honesty.

It was me wot put em up to it in the fust place. Don't tell anyone though.

WesternWay

ketsbaia wrote:

Cannot, apparently, be discussed in the London Assembly. Well, they could be, if Tory AMs hadn't walked out of the Assembly, thereby making it inquorate.

What a lovely bunch.

Do you have a source for this... That sounds disgusting

bails87

http://road.cc/content/news/48772-no-gl ... six-months
No GLA debate on killer junctions and cycling safety as London's Tories stage [second] walkout in six months

davmaggs

Before the lynch mob really warms up here is more information on why the walk-outs weren't about cycling, but instead coincided with the topic.

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/06/to ... k-out.html

Importantly it states "The London Assembly is not a decision-making body, it's a scrutiny body", so these meetings weren't going to enact something that day that we are now going to miss out on.

il_principe

davmaggs wrote:

Before the lynch mob really warms up here is more information on why the walk-outs weren't about cycling, but instead coincided with the topic.

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/06/to ... k-out.html

Importantly it states "The London Assembly is not a decision-making body, it's a scrutiny body", so these meetings weren't going to enact something that day that we are now going to miss out on.

Irrelevant. This is about the message their walk out sends. That's twice this year that a tory walk out has coincided with debates about cyclist safety. I find the timing to be incredibly insensitive given the recent spate of deaths in London. I urge you all to write to your tory representatives and express your displeasure:

http://www.writetothem.com/write?who=39 ... %2Fcontact

http://www.writetothem.com/write?who=39 ... %2Fcontact

http://www.writetothem.com/write?who=39 ... %2Fcontact

It's not good enough.

ketsbaia

davmaggs wrote:

Before the lynch mob really warms up here is more information on why the walk-outs weren't about cycling, but instead coincided with the topic.

Why didn't they walk out yesterday, then?

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

Before the lynch mob really warms up here is more information on why the walk-outs weren't about cycling, but instead coincided with the topic.

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/06/to ... k-out.html

Importantly it states "The London Assembly is not a decision-making body, it's a scrutiny body", so these meetings weren't going to enact something that day that we are now going to miss out on.

Bloody striking public sector workers.....

davmaggs

ketsbaia wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Before the lynch mob really warms up here is more information on why the walk-outs weren't about cycling, but instead coincided with the topic.

Why didn't they walk out yesterday, then?

Email them and ask them, I am merely posting up what I could find after I decided to look into it following the uninformed rants that went up.

I suspect they walked out because it suited how the process works and worked around the timetable of the organisation, but we on the outside remain fixated on the title of the debate because we have an interest in it.

The subject of the debate is coincidental, and had been another interest group then forums for those people would have been demanding a hanging or two. Remember it is a debate, there was no outcome expected.

toontra

davmaggs wrote:

The subject of the debate is coincidental, and had been another interest group then forums for those people would have been demanding a hanging or two. Remember it is a debate, there was no outcome expected.

Presumably issues are debated in order to see if anything needs doing (i.e. legislation, cash, etc), not simply to fill a rainy afternoon. If the debate doesn't happen then there won't be any action.

Even without immediate action, debate can be useful in bringing issues to the public/politicians attention.

il_principe

Here's a reply I've had:

Thank you for your email. I apologise for some delay in replying, but I have been in an important meeting with the Army London District CO.

I did walk out with Conservative colleagues and the Independent Member from the Assembly Plenary, but it is not true to say, and we utterly refute all suggestions, that we in some way walked out today because of a lack of regard for recent cycle deaths.

All motions today, including our own, were lost by this action. All the parties who have conspired to deny the Conservative Group fair and equitable chairmanship of Assembly committees will have known that if they did so this time we would leave. But that did not stop them playing their games.

Given this, you must ask them why, given our stance on representation, they chose to ignore the democratic will of Londoners in favour of their own narrow advantage and scuppered debate on all motions before the Assembly today.

Good wishes

Richard Tracey JP AM
London Assembly Member for Merton & Wandsworth

Regardless of their motives, the timing is very unfortunate. 2 cycling debates scuppered in 7 months. The second just a few weeks after 3 more fatalities.

ketsbaia

davmaggs wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Before the lynch mob really warms up here is more information on why the walk-outs weren't about cycling, but instead coincided with the topic.

Why didn't they walk out yesterday, then?

I suspect they walked out because it suited how the process works and worked around the timetable of the organisation, but we on the outside remain fixated on the title of the debate because we have an interest in it.

I suspect they walked out because they don't give a flying fig about cyclist deaths.

deptfordmarmoset

It sounds like illegal strike action to me, deciding not to work without holding a proper audited ballot. As employees, funded by public money, they should have their own book thrown at them. I don't pay toad tax for them to play silly party politics.

snooks

Feeling of déjà vu

W1

I wonder whether the Labour members deliberately timed their motions to coincide with what they knew would cause the Tory members to leave, meaning they could undertake this bit of PR spin?

Then who are the people not taking cycling deaths seriously?

Why not simply table the motion to avoid any potential walk-outs? It cannot be that hard, unless you deliberately manipulate the process.

This thread sounds like a bunch of tin-foil-hatters with their fingers in their ears.

notsoblue

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

It sounds like illegal strike action to me, deciding not to work without holding a proper audited ballot. As employees, funded by public money, they should have their own book thrown at them. I don't pay toad tax for them to play silly party politics.

jds_1981

This seems to have a bit more info in

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... ional.html