Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of misleading the public after it claimed that a group of “unhappy” residents “surrounded” contractors tasked with installing one of the city’s new bike hangars.

According to the council, staff from parking enforcement contractors NSL were in the process of implementing a parking suspension, in preparation for the installation of a second bike hangar on Cissbury Road, Hove, when they were “surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents”.

However, a Cissbury Road resident has criticised the council’s account, branding it “misleading”, and claimed that he “had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police”, Brighton and Hove News reports (link is external).

The new cycle hangars, which offer secure storage for six bicycles, have proven a somewhat surprising and enduring source of contention in the south coast city in recent months.

With 150 hangars expected to be rolled out across Brighton and Hove by the spring, and a waiting list stretching into the hundreds, they have proven hugely popular with many local residents looking for somewhere to securely store their bikes. However, the units have also attracted the ire of some locals who claim that they are an eyesore and take up too much space, despite the hangars being able to fit in a space usually reserved for one car.

In November, a new cycle hangar in Norfolk Square, one of 60 already installed in the city since July 2022, was met with outrage after residents pointed out that it was hanging over two permit car parking spaces, prompting the council to investigate the hangar’s positioning.

Later that month, a Hove woman successfully persuaded the council not to put one of the new hangars outside her home because it was “unattractive” – leading one councillor to observe that people opposed to them do not seem to have a problem with “Range Rovers that are half parked on the pavement.”

With demand for bike storage increasing, the Green Party-led council’s environment, transport and sustainability committee voted in November to install a second hangar on Cissbury Road.

This was approved despite the objections of Labour councillors John Allcock and Jackie O’Quinn, along with seven residents, who opposed the additional unit because they claimed that it would exacerbate the pre-existing parking issues on the road, which is located near Brighton, Hove and Sussex VI Form College.

One local claimed that, thanks to the new hangar taking up a single parking space on the road, parents and carers picking up students from the college had since started parking on double yellow lines and leaving their engines running.

Councillor Allcock told a meeting last month that it appeared that council contractors had been advised by the local authority to contact police if people questioned what they were doing.

According to Allcock, after some residents of Cissbury Road approached workers who were preparing to install the second hangar, the contractors showed them an email from the council that said they should call police “if there was any trouble”.

The councillor, who maintained that his party backed the hangars in principle as part of efforts to promote active travel, said: “It’s certainly highly inappropriate and unhelpful to threaten well-meaning and responsible citizens with a call to the police when they question how council services are being implemented in their neighbourhood.

“I’m very afraid that this zealot-like behaviour will only alienate citizens from engaging in the process of active travel rather than govern by consensus and win support.”

In response to Allcock’s criticism of the council’s handling of its residents’ concerns, the Green Party’s Hannah Allbrooke replied: “We had a report from our parking suspension contractors NSL recently that their staff were surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents in Cissbury Road when they were trying to put a parking suspension in place ready for our bike hangar installers to install a hangar.

“We have a duty of care to our staff and contractors. We would always advise them to call the police if they are facing situations where they are concerned for their safety.”

However, one of the residents who approached the contractors, Graeme Lyons, disagreed with the council’s assessment of the situation, which he argued was “misleading”.

Lyons, who claimed that he was alone when he first approached the contractors before being joined by three neighbours, said: “‘Surrounded’ and ‘unhappy’ are quite misleading. No one was threatening, aggressive or abusive.

“The Falco staff were pleasant enough, apart from threatening the police within the first 30 seconds of contact when it was just me on the street.

“What is most crucial here, though, is the Falco guys read out that email and made that statement about the police when it was just me before the other three people came out.

“I had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police. The other three people will verify that, as soon as they joined me, I told them how shocked I was at what I had just been told and the email I had been shown.”

Despite the Cissbury Road residents’ objections to a second hangar on the residential street, Green Party councillor Allbrooke insisted that the location of the bike storage units “are determined by where people asked for them”.

“We saw from the responses to the survey last year that residents really want them,” she said. “With so many people living in shared accommodation, flats or houses where storage space is at a premium, it can be so difficult for people to find spaces to store their cycles.”

https://road.cc/content/news/residents-threatened-police-over-bike-hangars-298455

On Sunday, 8 January 2023 at 11:15:34 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of misleading the public after it claimed that a group of “unhappy” residents “surrounded” contractors tasked with installing one of the city’s new bike hangars.
>
> According to the council, staff from parking enforcement contractors NSL were in the process of implementing a parking suspension, in preparation for the installation of a second bike hangar on Cissbury Road, Hove, when they were “surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents”.
>
> However, a Cissbury Road resident has criticised the council’s account, branding it “misleading”, and claimed that he “had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police”, Brighton and Hove News reports (link is external).
>
> The new cycle hangars, which offer secure storage for six bicycles, have proven a somewhat surprising and enduring source of contention in the south coast city in recent months.
>
> With 150 hangars expected to be rolled out across Brighton and Hove by the spring, and a waiting list stretching into the hundreds, they have proven hugely popular with many local residents looking for somewhere to securely store their bikes. However, the units have also attracted the ire of some locals who claim that they are an eyesore and take up too much space, despite the hangars being able to fit in a space usually reserved for one car.
>
> In November, a new cycle hangar in Norfolk Square, one of 60 already installed in the city since July 2022, was met with outrage after residents pointed out that it was hanging over two permit car parking spaces, prompting the council to investigate the hangar’s positioning.
>
> Later that month, a Hove woman successfully persuaded the council not to put one of the new hangars outside her home because it was “unattractive” – leading one councillor to observe that people opposed to them do not seem to have a problem with “Range Rovers that are half parked on the pavement.”
>
> With demand for bike storage increasing, the Green Party-led council’s environment, transport and sustainability committee voted in November to install a second hangar on Cissbury Road.
>
> This was approved despite the objections of Labour councillors John Allcock and Jackie O’Quinn, along with seven residents, who opposed the additional unit because they claimed that it would exacerbate the pre-existing parking issues on the road, which is located near Brighton, Hove and Sussex VI Form College.
>
> One local claimed that, thanks to the new hangar taking up a single parking space on the road, parents and carers picking up students from the college had since started parking on double yellow lines and leaving their engines running.
>
> Councillor Allcock told a meeting last month that it appeared that council contractors had been advised by the local authority to contact police if people questioned what they were doing.
>
> According to Allcock, after some residents of Cissbury Road approached workers who were preparing to install the second hangar, the contractors showed them an email from the council that said they should call police “if there was any trouble”.
>
> The councillor, who maintained that his party backed the hangars in principle as part of efforts to promote active travel, said: “It’s certainly highly inappropriate and unhelpful to threaten well-meaning and responsible citizens with a call to the police when they question how council services are being implemented in their neighbourhood.
>
> “I’m very afraid that this zealot-like behaviour will only alienate citizens from engaging in the process of active travel rather than govern by consensus and win support.”
>
> In response to Allcock’s criticism of the council’s handling of its residents’ concerns, the Green Party’s Hannah Allbrooke replied: “We had a report from our parking suspension contractors NSL recently that their staff were surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents in Cissbury Road when they were trying to put a parking suspension in place ready for our bike hangar installers to install a hangar.
>
> “We have a duty of care to our staff and contractors. We would always advise them to call the police if they are facing situations where they are concerned for their safety.”
>
> However, one of the residents who approached the contractors, Graeme Lyons, disagreed with the council’s assessment of the situation, which he argued was “misleading”.
>
> Lyons, who claimed that he was alone when he first approached the contractors before being joined by three neighbours, said: “‘Surrounded’ and ‘unhappy’ are quite misleading. No one was threatening, aggressive or abusive.
>
> “The Falco staff were pleasant enough, apart from threatening the police within the first 30 seconds of contact when it was just me on the street.
>
> “What is most crucial here, though, is the Falco guys read out that email and made that statement about the police when it was just me before the other three people came out.
>
> “I had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police. The other three people will verify that, as soon as they joined me, I told them how shocked I was at what I had just been told and the email I had been shown.”
>
> Despite the Cissbury Road residents’ objections to a second hangar on the residential street, Green Party councillor Allbrooke insisted that the location of the bike storage units “are determined by where people asked for them”.
>
> “We saw from the responses to the survey last year that residents really want them,” she said. “With so many people living in shared accommodation, flats or houses where storage space is at a premium, it can be so difficult for people to find spaces to store their cycles.”
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/residents-threatened-police-over-bike-hangars-298455

We live in a 'Snowflake' world.

Was he threatened or was he simply advised that if he impeded the workers, that according to their operating instructions, they had been told to phone the police? To call this being threatened seems a bit overdramatic. He sounds like a bit of a snowflake.

Exactly. Over Christmas my local sorting office, dealing with a lot of disgruntled punters trying to trace their presents, had a notice on the wall that read "We respectfully advise customers that in the event of any threats or abuse our staff have been advised to call the police." That's not threatening, it's just a fair warning that ensures everyone knows where they stand.

On 08/01/2023 11:15 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of misleading the public after it claimed that a group of “unhappy” residents “surrounded” contractors tasked with installing one of the city’s new bike hangars.

They're Green nutters. What do you expect them to do but lie?

> According to the council, staff from parking enforcement contractors NSL were in the process of implementing a parking suspension, in preparation for the installation of a second bike hangar on Cissbury Road, Hove, when they were “surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents”.
> However, a Cissbury Road resident has criticised the council’s account, branding it “misleading”, and claimed that he “had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police”, Brighton and Hove News reports (link is external).
> The new cycle hangars, which offer secure storage for six bicycles, have proven a somewhat surprising and enduring source of contention in the south coast city in recent months.
> With 150 hangars expected to be rolled out across Brighton and Hove by the spring, and a waiting list stretching into the hundreds, they have proven hugely popular with many local residents looking for somewhere to securely store their bikes. However, the units have also attracted the ire of some locals who claim that they are an eyesore and take up too much space, despite the hangars being able to fit in a space usually reserved for one car.
> In November, a new cycle hangar in Norfolk Square, one of 60 already installed in the city since July 2022, was met with outrage after residents pointed out that it was hanging over two permit car parking spaces, prompting the council to investigate the hangar’s positioning.
> Later that month, a Hove woman successfully persuaded the council not to put one of the new hangars outside her home because it was “unattractive” – leading one councillor to observe that people opposed to them do not seem to have a problem with “Range Rovers that are half parked on the pavement.”

Are the Range Rovers, or any other motor vehicles, there for twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week fifty-two weeks a year, then?

[Yes]

[No]

[delete as appropriate]

> With demand for bike storage increasing, the Green Party-led council’s environment, transport and sustainability committee voted in November to install a second hangar on Cissbury Road.
> This was approved despite the objections of Labour councillors John Allcock and Jackie O’Quinn, along with seven residents, who opposed the additional unit because they claimed that it would exacerbate the pre-existing parking issues on the road, which is located near Brighton, Hove and Sussex VI Form College.

I know the area. Parking is a problem, though it does not need to be so
bad and is only as bad as it is because of the chosen policies of the
local authority.
>
> One local claimed that, thanks to the new hangar taking up a single parking space on the road, parents and carers picking up students from the college had since started parking on double yellow lines and leaving their engines running.
> Councillor Allcock told a meeting last month that it appeared that council contractors had been advised by the local authority to contact police if people questioned what they were doing.
> According to Allcock, after some residents of Cissbury Road approached workers who were preparing to install the second hangar, the contractors showed them an email from the council that said they should call police “if there was any trouble”.

So the council KNEW that residents don't want these intrusive eyesores
but is determined to prevail, for political and self-assertion reasons
(well, they're Greens, mainly - nutters to a man)

> The councillor, who maintained that his party backed the hangars in principle as part of efforts to promote active travel, said: “It’s certainly highly inappropriate and unhelpful to threaten well-meaning and responsible citizens with a call to the police when they question how council services are being implemented in their neighbourhood.
> “I’m very afraid that this zealot-like behaviour will only alienate citizens from engaging in the process of active travel rather than govern by consensus and win support.”

He is right. But the council should not be trying to "govern by
consensus" in a situation where is, very obviously, no consensus for
their doctrinaire and ideological policies. The council should listen to
the residents and consult with other interested parties (including those
who work in the area) before arriving at a decision which fufis the
wishes of those with legitimate interests in the area.
>
> In response to Allcock’s criticism of the council’s handling of its residents’ concerns, the Green Party’s Hannah Allbrooke replied: “We had a report from our parking suspension contractors NSL recently that their staff were surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents in Cissbury Road when they were trying to put a parking suspension in place ready for our bike hangar installers to install a hangar.
> “We have a duty of care to our staff and contractors. We would always advise them to call the police if they are facing situations where they are concerned for their safety.”

Would the Greens ("nutters") advise the same thing when protestors were
blocking roads? Or is that Totally Different and something with which
Green nutters can easily agree?

> However, one of the residents who approached the contractors, Graeme Lyons, disagreed with the council’s assessment of the situation, which he argued was “misleading”.
> Lyons, who claimed that he was alone when he first approached the contractors before being joined by three neighbours, said: “‘Surrounded’ and ‘unhappy’ are quite misleading. No one was threatening, aggressive or abusive.
> “The Falco staff were pleasant enough, apart from threatening the police within the first 30 seconds of contact when it was just me on the street.
> “What is most crucial here, though, is the Falco guys read out that email and made that statement about the police when it was just me before the other three people came out.
> “I had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police. The other three people will verify that, as soon as they joined me, I told them how shocked I was at what I had just been told and the email I had been shown.”
> Despite the Cissbury Road residents’ objections to a second hangar on the residential street, Green Party councillor Allbrooke insisted that the location of the bike storage units “are determined by where people asked for them”.

That is a clear lie.

A lie from a Green nutter - who'd have though it?

> “We saw from the responses to the survey last year that residents really want them,” she said. “With so many people living in shared accommodation, flats or houses where storage space is at a premium, it can be so difficult for people to find spaces to store their cycles.”

Totally unimportant in the scheme of things.

> https://road.cc/content/news/residents-threatened-police-over-bike-hangars-298455
>

If people are finding them unattractive, then maybe they should have a graffitti/mural contest and get them painted by local artists. At least it's possible with these rather than having some blocky SUV parked there.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> If people are finding them unattractive, then maybe they should have a
> graffitti/mural contest and get them painted by local artists. At least
> it's possible with these rather than having some blocky SUV parked there.

The local artists could decorate the cycle hangars with depictions of
sports cyclists who took performance-enhancing drugs. There’s quite a lot
of hangars to decorate, after all.
I’m waiting for news that someone has modified a cycle hangar by means of a
fully-loaded tipper truck.

--
Spike

What these residents need to realise (especially as they are the type who complain about councils 'wasting money') is that if the contractor is unable to instal the infrastructure they won't - and they will return another day.. But they will invoice the council twice. And thrice if necessary. Leave the contractors to do their work. And the road doesn't belong to you and your car. It belongs to everyone. 

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> What these residents need to realise (especially as they are the type who
> complain about councils 'wasting money') is that if the contractor is
> unable to instal the infrastructure they won't - and they will return
> another day. But they will invoice the council twice. And thrice if
> necessary. Leave the contractors to do their work. And the road doesn't
> belong to you and your car. It belongs to everyone. 

What difference in principle is there between parking a car on the road and
parking a cycle hangar there?

--
Spike

It's also highly inappropriate and unhelpful to badger well-meaning and responsible workers who are simply carrying out the instructions of a democratically-elected council, no? 

On 08/01/2023 04:59 pm, Spike wrote:

> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

>> What these residents need to realise (especially as they are the type who
>> complain about councils 'wasting money') is that if the contractor is
>> unable to instal the infrastructure they won't - and they will return
>> another day. But they will invoice the council twice. And thrice if
>> necessary. Leave the contractors to do their work. And the road doesn't
>> belong to you and your car. It belongs to everyone.
>
> What difference in principle is there between parking a car on the road and
> parking a cycle hangar there?

The fairy-cycle "hangar" takes up space (and denies its use to others in
a very dog and manger manner) even when it contains no fairy-cycles.

Not so with a parking space.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:06:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's also highly inappropriate and unhelpful to badger well-meaning and responsible workers who are simply carrying out the instructions of a democratically-elected council, no?

No. Not when it interferes with their inalienable, god-given right to park whever they like.

On 08/01/2023 05:08 pm, swldx...@gmail.com...

....talking to himself again (the second sign of madness, as it used to
be alleged), said:

> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:06:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> It's also highly inappropriate and unhelpful to badger well-meaning and responsible workers who are simply carrying out the instructions of a democratically-elected council, no?
>
> No. Not when it interferes with their inalienable, god-given right to park whever ["wherever" or "whether"?] they like.

Why do you keep talking to yourself?

I can't help wondering just what the "well-meaning and responsible" residents thought they were going to achieve by approaching the workers? Gently persuade them to neglect the task they'd been given? You'd hope they had enough intelligence to realise they were applying pressure at the wrong part of the process, but it appears not to be the case. 

On Sunday, 8 January 2023 at 16:59:17 UTC, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What these residents need to realise (especially as they are the type who
> > complain about councils 'wasting money') is that if the contractor is
> > unable to instal the infrastructure they won't - and they will return
> > another day. But they will invoice the council twice. And thrice if
> > necessary. Leave the contractors to do their work. And the road doesn't
> > belong to you and your car. It belongs to everyone.
> What difference in principle is there between parking a car on the road and
> parking a cycle hangar there?
>
> --
> Spike

Isn't that the point? A parked car is pretty, a cycle hanger is ugly according to the NIMBY's.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/2023 05:08 pm, swldx...@gmail.com...
>
> ...talking to himself again (the second sign of madness, as it used to
> be alleged), said:
>
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:06:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> It's also highly inappropriate and unhelpful to badger well-meaning and
>>> responsible workers who are simply carrying out the instructions of a
>>> democratically-elected council, no?
>>
>> No. Not when it interferes with their inalienable, god-given right to
>> park whever ["wherever" or "whether"?] they like.

> Why do you keep talking to yourself?

He’s the only person who will listen?

--
Spike

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:31:47 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> Isn't that the point? A parked car is pretty, a cycle hanger is ugly according to the NIMBY's.

Tbf from what they've said it's unclear if they know the differences between contractors hired by the council, council workers, and councillors.

Many people in Brighton think they're all the 'Green Council'.

On Sunday, 8 January 2023 at 14:17:16 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/01/2023 11:15 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of misleading the public after it claimed that a group of “unhappy” residents “surrounded” contractors tasked with installing one of the city’s new bike hangars.
> They're Green nutters. What do you expect them to do but lie?
> > According to the council, staff from parking enforcement contractors NSL were in the process of implementing a parking suspension, in preparation for the installation of a second bike hangar on Cissbury Road, Hove, when they were “surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents”.
> > However, a Cissbury Road resident has criticised the council’s account, branding it “misleading”, and claimed that he “had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police”, Brighton and Hove News reports (link is external).
> > The new cycle hangars, which offer secure storage for six bicycles, have proven a somewhat surprising and enduring source of contention in the south coast city in recent months.
> > With 150 hangars expected to be rolled out across Brighton and Hove by the spring, and a waiting list stretching into the hundreds, they have proven hugely popular with many local residents looking for somewhere to securely store their bikes. However, the units have also attracted the ire of some locals who claim that they are an eyesore and take up too much space, despite the hangars being able to fit in a space usually reserved for one car.
> > In November, a new cycle hangar in Norfolk Square, one of 60 already installed in the city since July 2022, was met with outrage after residents pointed out that it was hanging over two permit car parking spaces, prompting the council to investigate the hangar’s positioning.
> > Later that month, a Hove woman successfully persuaded the council not to put one of the new hangars outside her home because it was “unattractive” – leading one councillor to observe that people opposed to them do not seem to have a problem with “Range Rovers that are half parked on the pavement.”
> Are the Range Rovers, or any other motor vehicles, there for twenty-four
> hours a day, seven days a week fifty-two weeks a year, then?
>
> [Yes]
>
> [No]
>
> [delete as appropriate]
> > With demand for bike storage increasing, the Green Party-led council’s environment, transport and sustainability committee voted in November to install a second hangar on Cissbury Road.
> > This was approved despite the objections of Labour councillors John Allcock and Jackie O’Quinn, along with seven residents, who opposed the additional unit because they claimed that it would exacerbate the pre-existing parking issues on the road, which is located near Brighton, Hove and Sussex VI Form College.
> I know the area. Parking is a problem, though it does not need to be so
> bad and is only as bad as it is because of the chosen policies of the
> local authority.
> >
> > One local claimed that, thanks to the new hangar taking up a single parking space on the road, parents and carers picking up students from the college had since started parking on double yellow lines and leaving their engines running.
> > Councillor Allcock told a meeting last month that it appeared that council contractors had been advised by the local authority to contact police if people questioned what they were doing.
> > According to Allcock, after some residents of Cissbury Road approached workers who were preparing to install the second hangar, the contractors showed them an email from the council that said they should call police “if there was any trouble”.
> So the council KNEW that residents don't want these intrusive eyesores
> but is determined to prevail, for political and self-assertion reasons
> (well, they're Greens, mainly - nutters to a man)

I’ll have you know that most of them are “women” now. Your hateful misgendering is something Mason finds most offensive (since 5 minutes ago, when someone told him that’s a fing wot clevva peo’le duz).

QUOTE: “We have a duty of care to our staff and contractors. We would always advise them to call the police if they are facing situations where they are concerned for their safety.” ENDS

Spot on - imagine being a contractor and having a ruddy gammon faced far right Kipper shoving his fat fingers in your face moaning about "lefty councils". SHOVE OFF, DUMBO.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: “We have a duty of care to our staff and contractors. We would
> always advise them to call the police if they are facing situations where
> they are concerned for their safety.” ENDS
>
> Spot on - imagine being a contractor and having a ruddy gammon faced far
> right Kipper shoving his fat fingers in your face moaning about "lefty
> councils". SHOVE OFF, DUMBO.

Oh, I don’t know, some people moan about ‘Tory councils’, hadn’t you
noticed?

--
Spike

On 08/01/2023 05:28 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I can't help wondering just what the "well-meaning and responsible" residents thought they were going to achieve by approaching the workers? Gently persuade them to neglect the task they'd been given? You'd hope they had enough intelligence to realise they were applying pressure at the wrong part of the process, but it appears not to be the case.

They certainly wouldn't have achieved anything at all by not seeking to
have the work stopped by some means or other.

Doing that by reasoning with others seems the best way to proceed.
That's if the others are prepared to see reason, of course. At least the
Nutter Green council is now talking about the scheme rather than seeking
to unceremoniously ram it down the throats of the residents, which
seemed to be their first approach.

On 08/01/2023 05:31 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 January 2023 at 16:59:17 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What these residents need to realise (especially as they are the type who
>>> complain about councils 'wasting money') is that if the contractor is
>>> unable to instal the infrastructure they won't - and they will return
>>> another day. But they will invoice the council twice. And thrice if
>>> necessary. Leave the contractors to do their work. And the road doesn't
>>> belong to you and your car. It belongs to everyone.
>> What difference in principle is there between parking a car on the road and
>> parking a cycle hangar there?
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> Isn't that the point? A parked car is pretty, a cycle hanger is ugly according to the NIMBY's.

It's "hangar", as I understand it.

Yes, a bit of putting on airs. "Bike-bin" would be more accurate.

But... isn't the whole point of a parked car that it is isn't there all
the time? Whereas a bike-bin IS there all the time.

On 08/01/2023 06:07 pm, Spike wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/01/2023 05:08 pm, swldx...@gmail.com...
>>
>> ...talking to himself again (the second sign of madness, as it used to
>> be alleged), said:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:06:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> It's also highly inappropriate and unhelpful to badger well-meaning and
>>>> responsible workers who are simply carrying out the instructions of a
>>>> democratically-elected council, no?
>>>
>>> No. Not when it interferes with their inalienable, god-given right to
>>> park whever ["wherever" or "whether"?] they like.
>
>> Why do you keep talking to yourself?
>
> He’s the only person who will listen?

He shouldn't underestimate himself. I'd say a lot of people read his posts.

On 08/01/2023 06:51 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:31:47 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>> Isn't that the point? A parked car is pretty, a cycle hanger is ugly according to the NIMBY's.

> Tbf from what they've said it's unclear if they know the differences between contractors hired by the council, council workers, and councillors.
>
> Many people in Brighton think they're all the 'Green Council'.

What makes you "think" you "know" that?

On 08/01/2023 08:21 pm, Peter Granger wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 January 2023 at 14:17:16 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/01/2023 11:15 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of misleading the public after it claimed that a group of “unhappy” residents “surrounded” contractors tasked with installing one of the city’s new bike hangars.
>> They're Green nutters. What do you expect them to do but lie?
>>> According to the council, staff from parking enforcement contractors NSL were in the process of implementing a parking suspension, in preparation for the installation of a second bike hangar on Cissbury Road, Hove, when they were “surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents”.
>>> However, a Cissbury Road resident has criticised the council’s account, branding it “misleading”, and claimed that he “had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police”, Brighton and Hove News reports (link is external).
>>> The new cycle hangars, which offer secure storage for six bicycles, have proven a somewhat surprising and enduring source of contention in the south coast city in recent months.
>>> With 150 hangars expected to be rolled out across Brighton and Hove by the spring, and a waiting list stretching into the hundreds, they have proven hugely popular with many local residents looking for somewhere to securely store their bikes. However, the units have also attracted the ire of some locals who claim that they are an eyesore and take up too much space, despite the hangars being able to fit in a space usually reserved for one car.
>>> In November, a new cycle hangar in Norfolk Square, one of 60 already installed in the city since July 2022, was met with outrage after residents pointed out that it was hanging over two permit car parking spaces, prompting the council to investigate the hangar’s positioning.
>>> Later that month, a Hove woman successfully persuaded the council not to put one of the new hangars outside her home because it was “unattractive” – leading one councillor to observe that people opposed to them do not seem to have a problem with “Range Rovers that are half parked on the pavement.”
>> Are the Range Rovers, or any other motor vehicles, there for twenty-four
>> hours a day, seven days a week fifty-two weeks a year, then?
>>
>> [Yes]
>>
>> [No]
>>
>> [delete as appropriate]
>>> With demand for bike storage increasing, the Green Party-led council’s environment, transport and sustainability committee voted in November to install a second hangar on Cissbury Road.
>>> This was approved despite the objections of Labour councillors John Allcock and Jackie O’Quinn, along with seven residents, who opposed the additional unit because they claimed that it would exacerbate the pre-existing parking issues on the road, which is located near Brighton, Hove and Sussex VI Form College.
>> I know the area. Parking is a problem, though it does not need to be so
>> bad and is only as bad as it is because of the chosen policies of the
>> local authority.
>>>
>>> One local claimed that, thanks to the new hangar taking up a single parking space on the road, parents and carers picking up students from the college had since started parking on double yellow lines and leaving their engines running.
>>> Councillor Allcock told a meeting last month that it appeared that council contractors had been advised by the local authority to contact police if people questioned what they were doing.
>>> According to Allcock, after some residents of Cissbury Road approached workers who were preparing to install the second hangar, the contractors showed them an email from the council that said they should call police “if there was any trouble”.
>> So the council KNEW that residents don't want these intrusive eyesores
>> but is determined to prevail, for political and self-assertion reasons
>> (well, they're Greens, mainly - nutters to a man)
>
> I’ll have you know that most of them are “women” now. Your hateful misgendering is something Mason finds most offensive (since 5 minutes ago, when someone told him that’s a fing wot clevva peo’le duz).

Tee hee!

QUOTE:With 150 hangars expected to be rolled out across Brighton and Hove by the spring, and a waiting list stretching into the hundreds, they have proven hugely popular with many local residents looking for somewhere to securely store their bikes.ENDS

The needs of the many take priority over a few swivel-eyed Brextards still living in WWII.