Forum topic: Terms of Debate

I know that I'm as guilty, perhaps even more guilty, than most in the production of the same arguments time and again on the issues which concern/interest me. I do it consciously. Which is because I assume that new readers may only read the latest contribution, and therefore never come across the rebuttal if it exists as a previous contribution.

Of course I understand that regular readers and contributors find this tiresome, but in the case of the Cycle Enfield proposals the issues are of such long term importance - essentially the future structure and use of streets against a background of high population growth in Enfield and elsewhere in London - that we shouldn't lose any chance of promoting awareness and the need for change.

As I see it discussion of this level of importance just has to be raised time and again: it's possible that we are in the very early days of the demise of the car as a major form of transport in London, lorries yes, vans yes, medical vehicles yes, bikes and buses of course, but cars, flexible and convenient as they are, are already too numerous in key bottlenecks, and sometimes/often to0 disruptive for the good of social and community life.

"Short, driver only car journeys are the current problem, I predict the target will expand as time goes on."

Of course a statement like that will cause incredulity, anger. True, but I want to be sure that the level of issue which cannot be ignored is clear. Right at the beginning of the life of this site I wrote a piece about the organisation Dignity in Dying which I strongly support, but have never returned to. It's important, but not in the same league of importance as a our streets: home space, social space, play space, connective space, business space, potential green space, the list goes on.

I hope that someone will prove me wrong in believing that repetition is necessary.