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...

In article ,
(Stevie) wrote:

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.

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...

One of the other problems is that it's a rather vital link in the road
network. Because that bloody great palace thing stops there being an
embankment in that area.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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 Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Paul Weaver wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:58 am, 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.

If you think that would stop someone causing an explosion in London,
you'd be crazy.

I don't. But i think unscrupulous politicians, such as Ken [1] might use
that as an argument if it suited them.

tom

[1] Don't get me wrong, i think Ken's a Good Thing, but you have to admit
he's unscrupulous.

--
Destroy! DESTROY! DEEEEEEE-STROY 2000 YEARS OF CULTCHAH!! -- Andrew

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

In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

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.]

Indeed. The annoying bit is that MPs don't think there is a problem
because there is bike parking for them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel