Who gets your vote?

Based on this, who would you vote for?


Southwark Cyclists Southwark Living Streets

Questionnaire on Sustainable Transport

We asked the Conservatives, Greens, Labour and Libdems to commit to
the following ten points and to tell us what they had done and would
do. Here are the responses

1.A less car-dominated Southwark, where the need to travel is
diminished by, for example, encouraging local facilities and the use
of new technologies, without threatening economic well-being.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. We should always aim to reduce the need to travel, partly to make
life easier for people, partly to be more environmentally friendly.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this on behalf of all their Southwark
candidates

Libdem
Southwark Council has just invested in 91 car share car parking spaces
on Southwark roads. Each car share car in the latest surveys on
average results in 24.5 private cars being removed -- so roughly 2,230
private cars will, over the next 2 years, be removed. We've invested
significant sums, from memory, £4.5m over the last 3 years on
improving local walkable shopping areas to make them more attractive
e.g. Norwood Road, Great Suffolk Street. The decisions of how to spend
this capital money are made by local Community Councils. No other
South London borough has so many libraries or leisure centres spread
across the borough ensuring we have local facilities for residents and
importantly minimising the need to travel by non walking or cycling.

2.Making Southwark ever better for those who walk and cycle, by
implementing urban design that prioritises walking and cycling,
including adequate pedestrian crossings in shopping areas and cycle
contraflows and protected lanes, even at the expense of on-street
parking.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. We must improve the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists
so that it's better, easier, more fun, to shop locally.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this

Libdem
We're resolving the problems that one way streets pose for people
walking or cycling. For people walking streets with fast moving
vehicles are unpleasant and hard to cross -- and one way streets
create avenues of fast moving streets. For cyclists one way streets
create long diversions making cycling more tiresome and long winded.
Making one way streets two way can be easily achieved in most cases
and we already have a programme to achieve this. Installing lots of
cycle parking encourages cycling as the fear of bicycle theft which is
exacerbated by poor cycle parking options.

3. Creating, with Transport for London, attractive, flourishing, safe
and beautiful streets and green spaces that respect local history,
where walking and cycling take priority.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. Agree wholeheartedly.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem
We propose devolving more powers and funding to local community
councils, established by the Liberal Democrats, so that they can
decide where and what to invest local funds in. For example the Local
Implementation Plan (LIP) includes £0.5M for Lordship Lane and similar
projects in other local Southwark communities.

4. Ensuring that all public bodies and private organisations
prioritise walking and cycling, and the use of public transport.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. All should have green travel plans, cycle buying schemes, and no
car parking except for disabled.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem
See 6 below





5. Using the Council's planning powers to ensure that all new
developments provide for walking and cycling, including secure cycle
parking for residents, visitors and at least 30% of employees.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. And have lots of car free developments. Southwark council has
promised such things for years but not delivered.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem
See 6 below

6. Promotion of car clubs, thus reducing car and van use and the
financial burden of vehicle ownership.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. It makes financial and environmental sense.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem
4, 5 and 6 A Southwark Council led by Liberal Democrats already uses
its planning powers to insist on cycle parking and more or less every
scheme that is decided by the Planning Committee has conditions about
secure and visitor cycle parking. We're clear that if evidence
indicates the proportion should be 30% then we will change planning
rules to whatever the evidence shows. Whether that be 20%, 30% or 40%.

7. Making the areas around schools safe for walking and cycling and
providing training to all Southwark school children, teachers and
other staff.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. Cycle training will encourage more cycling and create healthier
schoolchildren, then we must protect our children, and their parents,
and aim for zero deaths and injuries on our roads.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem

We already provide cycle training for adults and children and expect
to continue this. For a number of years we've supported safe routes to
schools and via the LIP community councils can decide whether to
support further additional works on safe routes to schools or not.

8.Working with the Police to reduce death and injury on our roads by
well-enforced 20mph limits on all Southwark roads, including Transport
for London's roads; and removing roadside railings and fixtures that
hinder pedestrian movement and speed up motor traffic.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. Jenny Jones, who sits on the Metropolitan Police Authority, has
prioritised roads policing in her work and protected the traffic
police
from severe cuts.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem

Each community council has over a £1/3M capital funding per annum.
They can choose to invest such devolved funding in speed measuring
devices allowing Safer Neighbourhood Teams to undertake speed
enforcement work such East Dulwich ward and Village ward have decided
or use such equipment for community speed watch projects. Equally
Southwark Cyclists and/or Southwark Living Streets could apply for
such funding from a Liberal Democrat controlled community council for
speed measurement/gun devices. With regards to 20mph limits, the
Liberal Democrats commit to 20mph for Southwark roads.

9.A zero-casualty policy, with a review of every single road death and
serious injury to remove the cause. All Council and contractors'
lorries to be fitted with side-guards, proximity sensors, in-vehicle
speed restrictors and full coverage mirrors.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. It seems odd that we accept a road death toll of about 200 every
year (plus many more serious injuries) when we wouldn't accept that
many stabbings, shootings or murders.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem
Yes, we are committed to reducing road casualties further. Working
towards zero-casualties as the Swedish are doing is a framework we
would support. A local authority working on its own without national
government leadership can only be partially successful. However,
Southwark Council should investigate all collisions where anyone is
killed or very seriously injured. It should not investigate collisions
on Transport for London roads as Southwark is not the responsible body
and legally and practically cannot make changes on these roads.
Railings should be removed and cycle parking installed where it
creates a cycle parking vacuum.

10.Easy access to walking and cycling advice, help and training for
all Southwark residents, workers, students and organisations.

Conservative
No response

Green
Yes. This would make us all healthier and probably get us all the work
faster.

Labour
Labour are happy to sign up to this.

Libdem
We plan to keep providing free cycling training for adults as well as
children.


What the parties have done and would do:

Conservative
No response

Green
Jenny Jones has worked through the London Assembly, Metropolitan
PoliceAuthority and Southwark Council to promote safe, sustainable
transport. She has stopped cuts to road policing, increased cycling
and walking budgets in London and raised the political profile of
these issues. She also loves attending Critical Mass bike rides along
with other Southwark Green Party members.

With more Greens on the council, we can do more to enforce the
council's dormant policy for new cycle facilities on every refurbished
road, and to work with local groups to identify and fix problems such
as the recent Living Streets audit of Peckham.

Labour
Labour has campaigned for 20mph zones to be rolled-out across the
borough but only using road humps when they are the most appropriate
traffic-calming measure. We believe that the best way to get more
people cycling is to improve the safety of every ordinary road and
street and to provide safe and secure parking wherever it's needed. We
believe that encouraging people to make more short-distance journeys
on foot is vital in tackling our borough's health problems and will
best be achieved by removing clutter, greening our streets and
improving signage.

Libdem
See above

May 1 2010

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?


Southwark Cyclists Southwark Living Streets

Questionnaire on Sustainable Transport

We asked the Conservatives, Greens, Labour and Libdems to commit to
the following ten points and to tell us what they had done and would
do. Here are the responses

Clearly any sane person would vote Conservative. By ignoring whacko ideas
from fruit loop pressure groups they would get on with running the place for
the 'majority' of the population - and not waste taxpayers money on tosspot
schemes.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On 4 May, 20:28, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

Southwark *Cyclists Southwark Living Streets

Questionnaire on Sustainable Transport

We asked the Conservatives, Greens, Labour and Libdems to commit to
the following ten points and to tell us what they had done and would
do. Here are the responses

Clearly any sane person would vote Conservative. *By ignoring whacko ideas
from fruit loop pressure groups they would get on with running the place for
the 'majority' of the population - and not waste taxpayers money on tosspot
schemes.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.


Clearly any sane person would vote Conservative. By ignoring whacko
ideas
from fruit loop pressure groups they would get on with running the
place for
the bankers, who have done so well recently.

--
Dave - a bit of a banker himself.

On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:28:23 +0100, Jim A
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

I think that I prefer a non-response to an insincere "We are happy to
sign up to this."

On 4 May, 21:52, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:28:23 +0100, Jim A
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

I think that I prefer a non-response to an insincere "We are happy to
sign up to this."

Cycling is a minority pastime though. Pandering to the minorities is a
slippery slope which breed malcontent amongst the majority of the
voting public.

I take it that the Conservatives were just not available, or didn't
return the questionnaire to illicit this form of derision from the
knitters ?

Squashme wrote:
On 4 May, 20:28, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

Southwark Cyclists Southwark Living Streets

Questionnaire on Sustainable Transport

We asked the Conservatives, Greens, Labour and Libdems to commit to
the following ten points and to tell us what they had done and would
do. Here are the responses

Clearly any sane person would vote Conservative. By ignoring whacko
ideas from fruit loop pressure groups they would get on with running
the place for the 'majority' of the population - and not waste
taxpayers money on tosspot schemes.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's
toy, not a viable form of transport.


Clearly any sane person would vote Conservative. By ignoring whacko
ideas
from fruit loop pressure groups they would get on with running the
place for
the bankers, who have done so well recently.

You don't need to be a ****wit every day - you can take time off.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:28:23 +0100, Jim A
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

I think that I prefer a non-response to an insincere "We are happy to
sign up to this."

My take on the four responses is;

Conservative; "Oh FFS its those minority cycling ******s again trying to
spend taxpayers money like no tommorrow - throw that rubbish in the bin".

Labour; "Tell them anything if it gets their votes".

Greens; "Goody goody, someone else who lives in a fantasy world, lets
agree - it won't matter, we will never gain any power anyway".

Lib Dem; "Whatever you want, we are doing it anyway because we don't have
any policies".

You complete & utter ******s are only interested in promoting your immature
fantasies - typically at someone else's expense.

If you want a cyclists paradise - stick your hands in your ****ing pockets &
pay for it yourselves.

Do you really think that Mr & Mrs Average, struggling to meet the bills, are
the least bit interested in your idiot schemes? What they want is the bins
emptied, the street lights to work, the roads to be swept and the schools to
teach their kids to read & write.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On Wed, 5 May 2010 01:17:15 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:28:23 +0100, Jim A
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

I think that I prefer a non-response to an insincere "We are happy to
sign up to this."

My take on the four responses is;

Conservative; "Oh FFS its those minority cycling ******s again trying to
spend taxpayers money like no tommorrow - throw that rubbish in the bin".

Labour; "Tell them anything if it gets their votes".

Greens; "Goody goody, someone else who lives in a fantasy world, lets
agree - it won't matter, we will never gain any power anyway".

Lib Dem; "Whatever you want, we are doing it anyway because we don't have
any policies".

This is really very good, Medway, and probably pretty much spot on.
You waste your talents with too much profanity.

In your latter comments, which I have snipped, I think that you can
add to the list of things that Mr and Mrs Average want: children that
are healthy and are able to travel to and from school safely.

On 4 May, 20:28, Jim A wrote:
On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:

Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

Same here, if I was allowed to. Besides, who can believe their empty
promises? I will be glad when this irritating charade is all over and
we revert to business as usual, even if it means Tweedledee,
Tweedledum and Tweedlelibdem form an hung Parliament. Wait a bit
though! Would that mean we would have to be subjected to the same
sorry process all over again? In which case may one of them please be
FPTP so that every time I tun on the telly there will not be some
dreadful politician blocking out the important world news.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Don't vote it only encourages them.
You can't change the play by changing the players.